Mere Civil Unions

[Leela]

I do not accept this argument and here is why: If equal volumes legalize abortion should the Church follow (?) absolutely not !

I didn’t supply that list as an argument for civil unions. I was just answering Thales question about whether other countries are doing it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, you redefine ideals as you come to learn their shortcomings.

And you don’t let ideals hurt other people. Actively, directly, hurt other people.

The people who are being hurt here are the children who will not live in loving homes. The placement of children with adoptive parents is not for the benefit of the parents, it’s for the benefit of the children. Some are the very children that so many on this site, if not on this thread, are so concerned about before birth, but so quick to deny the opportunity to live in loving families – in the name of an ideal. Tell the kid who had to live in an institution about your ideals.

Maybe proposing same-sex marriage with one partner going outside the marriage to get children is to develop people to be hurt? Maybe encouraging married male-female pair bonded for life, with mothers bonded to their children is not so bad?

 

[Leela]

I’m guessing it takes a few generations for moral decay to destroy a country or civilization. It’s not fair to use these examples when it has been only in the very recent past, maybe not even a generation ago, that those countries have recognized same-sex “marriage” as something equal to heterosexual marriage.

I’m guessing that if there were a country that has has same sex civil unions for hundreds of years and been successful with it, and if I provided data that children of same-sex parents fair better than children of heterosexual parents such data would be completely irrelevent.

Youve asked for evidence, but this is an issue of faith for you. I suspect you would not allow yourself to be swayed by evidence no matter how convincing in its support for same sex unions. Am I right?

 

[Leela]

Maybe proposing same-sex marriage with one partner going outside the marriage to get children is to develop people to be hurt? Maybe encouraging married male-female pair bonded for life, with mothers bonded to their children is not so bad?

Are you a father? If so, it is a shame that you feel incapable of bonding with your children. Other men I know do not feel that way at all. In fact, you have me worried for your kids if you have any.

 

[Thales]

I’m guessing that if there were a country that has has same sex civil unions for hundreds of years and been successful with it, and if I provided data that children of same-sex parents fair better than children of heterosexual parents such data would be completely irrelevent.

Youve asked for evidence, but this is an issue of faith for you. I suspect you would not allow yourself to be swayed by evidence no matter how convincing in its support for same sex unions. Am I right?

I think I might have the opposite thoughts as you on this:
You say Pragmatism accepts what is true as a truth, never the Truth, which does not exist. 2+2=4 now, that is the best we can come up with at the moment, it is true now but possibly not in the future, you just can’t know for sure. “What works”, for now at least. I hold somewhat the opposite. I have faith there is an absolute truth, God, which we cannot know entirely. He has revealed truths (small t) to us. We should have faith in them although they are sometimes distorted through interpretation. At times they may appear to be false in certain circumstances, but their overall effectiveness, and value for the common good is constant in sum total. To make a successful aberration the norm is a recipe for ruin.

An issue of faith? Do my arguments sound like they are based on faith alone? I purposely avoid that here because it is a device of athiest as a discussion stopper, because it’s senseless to argue faith. I am trying to provide evidence. What I have from the pro civil-union/same-sex “marriage” side is congecture and emotional outcry rooted in victim mentality and super self identification with one’s sexual orientation.

I have reasoned faith on this issue. I have faith in the ideal because it is natural, logical, and vast overwhelming evidence supports that traditional marriage, between one man and one woman with the implied ability to have children creating a family unit yields the best outcome. Not perfect but best. Why would someone make this up or hold it just out of blind faith? Other systems have been tried, like polygamy and having the state raise the children in an institution. None of it works as well. This evidence coupled with it being revealed very plainly in scripture creates the ideal, that which we should aspire to. Practically and logically heterosexual marriage works. Homosexual marriage raising children is not natural, or logical, no precedence, and has many detriments (the health issues I discussed). Based on this your faith is much greater than mine.

If you’re determining faith as my motive based on my ability to be swayed on this issue you must have a great amount of it yourself.

 

[1holycatholic]

It sounds like he would agree with me that the government should get out of the “(re)defining marriage” business and simply license civil unions across the board while letting the churches decide who they want to marry.

The Communist Party of China is officially atheist and they acknowledge only marriages between one man and one woman.

It’s not a Church thing. It’s an acknowledgment of the natural law.

 

[Leela]

I think I might have the opposite thoughts as you on this:
You say Pragmatism accepts what is true as a truth, never the Truth, which does not exist. 2+2=4 now, that is the best we can come up with at the moment, it is true now but possibly not in the future, you just can’t know for sure. “What works”, for now at least. I hold somewhat the opposite. I have faith there is an absolute truth, God, which we cannot know entirely. He has revealed truths (small t) to us. We should have faith in them although they are sometimes distorted through interpretation. At times they may appear to be false in certain circumstances, but their overall effectiveness, and value for the common good is constant in sum total. To make a successful aberration the norm is a recipe for ruin.

An issue of faith? Do my arguments sound like they are based on faith alone? I purposely avoid that here because it is a device of athiest as a discussion stopper, because it’s senseless to argue faith. I am trying to provide evidence. What I have from the pro civil-union/same-sex “marriage” side is congecture and emotional outcry rooted in victim mentality and super self identification with one’s sexual orientation.

I have reasoned faith on this issue. I have faith in the ideal because it is natural, logical, and vast overwhelming evidence supports that traditional marriage, between one man and one woman with the implied ability to have children creating a family unit yields the best outcome. Not perfect but best. Why would someone make this up or hold it just out of blind faith? Other systems have been tried, like polygamy and having the state raise the children in an institution. None of it works as well. This evidence coupled with it being revealed very plainly in scripture creates the ideal, that which we should aspire to. Practically and logically heterosexual marriage works. Homosexual marriage raising children is not natural, or logical, no precedence, and has many detriments (the health issues I discussed). Based on this your faith is much greater than mine.

If you’re determining faith as my motive based on my ability to be swayed on this issue you must have a great amount of it yourself.

I have hope for a better future, but I don’t know what you think I have faith in. I try not to hold beliefs dogmatically, so if you think I have dogmas of my own I’d appreciate it if you pointed them out for me.

 

[Leela]

The Communist Party of China is officially atheist and they acknowledge only marriages between one man and one woman.

It’s not a Church thing. It’s an acknowledgment of the natural law.

It’s interesting that you bring up China as an example of states that do not allow same-sex unions. I would have thought that you would notice that you do not have such great company in your views. You also agree with the Taliban, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, and Iran. Perhaps you’d be happier in one of these anti-homosexual union countries instead of in the developed world where civil unions are becoming the norm?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Are you a father? If so, it is a shame that you feel incapable of bonding with your children. Other men I know do not feel that way at all. In fact, you have me worried for your kids if you have any.

Part of being a good father is recognizing the function of the mother. No matter how nice/good a person Bill & Ted are they will never ever mother a child. It is disappointing any homosexual would think their “marriage” display is more important than the child’s need for a mother.

(I thank God and my mother every day for having had a good mother.)

 

[naptown22]

Dear Thales –

I’m sorry if I pushed the thread away from civil unions too far – what I was trying to say was that, because the norm for marriages, the ideal if you wish, is woman and man, it doesn’t follow that exceptions to that norm are necessarily bad. Of course it’s preferable for children to be raised by their own mixed-sex-couple natural parents, but many circumstances can make that impossible. In the case of a child with no parents, many substitutes may be available, and my point was that same-sex marriages can be as good for children as other alternatives. My point really was that the idea of an ideal mixed-sex couple can be the enemy of a good enough alternative and that the ideal ought not to militate against a good individual case which doesn’t fulfill the ideal.

I do agree with all the screening that we went through for our adoptions. My point there was that the screening will find the good individual cases, and should not exclude same-sex couples without considering their fitness to be good parents. You and I may disagree on whether this is theoretically possible.

If you and your wife do go ahead with adoption, I wish you everything good, every success, and wonderful children. My own children, now 21 and 22, could not be better people or make me more proud, and that includes my son who came to the realization of his homosexuality about 18 months ago, and whom I love without reserve, just as I do my daughter. I really do wish your family the best of everything.

 

[1holycatholic]

It’s interesting that you bring up China as an example of states that do not allow same-sex unions.

I could have mentioned every atheist state, and probably 98%+ of the countries on the face of the earth - atheist or not.

We don’t need you to point out the savage cruelty of atheist states, history does that for us.

 

[1holycatholic]

Perhaps you’d be happier in one of these anti-homosexual union countries instead of in the developed world where civil unions are becoming the norm?

They’re not the norm, they’re intrinsically disordered and by definition: abnormal - a legal fiction forcibly imposed by the state.

 

[Thales]

I have hope for a better future, but I don’t know what you think I have faith in. I try not to hold beliefs dogmatically, so if you think I have dogmas of my own I’d appreciate it if you pointed them out for me.

I’m pointing out the fact that it is illogical for you to accuse me of basing my position on faith because it appears I can’t be swayed. Your position is not changing either in the face of my arguments, so by virtue of your statement to me, I assume your position is based on faith also.
I guess I was being rhetorical. I don’t think you hold any dogmas. That much I am clear about from you explanations of Pragmatism.

However, you do keep bringing up “hope for a better future”. Doesn’t this imply some sort of moral judgment, a sense of good and bad? You hold the very simple dogma of goodness being preferable to evil. Can’t you say the idea of good and bad are constant truths. Although the same thing may slide up and down the scale depending on circumstances, as an idea good and bad (or evil) are constant. You could I guess say sometimes it’s OK to commit an act everyone else would call evil (murder, rape, etc.) but this would put you in the realm of the nihilist, who just doesn’t care. I don’t think that is what you prescribe to.

Sorry for getting off the topic. This response might better have been placed in the “Why should we follow moral law?” thread.

 

[Thales]

If you and your wife do go ahead with adoption, I wish you everything good, every success, and wonderful children. My own children, now 21 and 22, could not be better people or make me more proud, and that includes my son who came to the realization of his homosexuality about 18 months ago, and whom I love without reserve, just as I do my daughter. I really do wish your family the best of everything.

Thank you so much! Your family is a beautiful thing which everyone should take note of. You deserve to be proud of what you have done and the family you raised. We should all work hard to encourage adoption.

I’m happy to hear you have no reservations about the degree of love for your son. I was just talking with a friend about this same issue; what if my son or daughter turned out to be homosexual. He said that he would disown him or her. I told him that would be a terrible thing. I would love my son or daughter all the same whether they were gay, straight, mentally handicapped, blind, deformed, or whatever. What I could not condone or approve of is their behavior if they acted on their homosexual tendencies, I explained. Just as I would not approve of them doing any sort of bad or destructive behavior be it stealing, infidelity, or short temperedness. I would with charity and love explain to them the dangers of that kind of lifestyle. We all have natural tendencies or deficiencies which we have to fight and overcome. For some it’s anger, others a tendency to gossip, or even sexual temptation. Some people are born blind, deformed, mentally handicapped, and some with same gender attraction. We are commanded to love these people because we are them too. No one is exempt from nature. Those who appear to be perfect, with beauty, intelligence, wealth, and all that one thinks makes someone perfect, must deal with pride or envy. Again there are no exceptions in this regard. These are the crosses we must bear. But still, all the same, every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and we are to love them.

It’s been a lapse in proper faith formation and education that the distinction between the sin and the sinner has eroded. The distinction has been lost, with many faithful seeing the sin and the sinner as one and attacking the person, while many liberal and atheist types see them as one and accepting the sin along with the sinner. The devil is probably pleased with both these situations.

To conclude here, remember, as Christians, as human beings, we should rise above and fight against our natural tendencies and concupiscence. They are remnants of the animal physicality we evolved from. Secondly, separate sin from the sinner. We need to fight, wage war against, and destroy sin, not people.

 

[Leela]

They’re not the norm, they’re intrinsically disordered and by definition: abnormal - a legal fiction forcibly imposed by the state.

If only the world fit better into the nice little categories of your own making…

 

[1holycatholic]

If only the world fit better into the nice little categories of your own making…

That’s the beauty of it, it’s not of my making, nor is it uniquely religious. It’s whether something is or is not in accordance with the natural law.

 

[Leela]

That’s the beauty of it, it’s not of my making, nor is it uniquely religious. It’s whether something is or is not in accordance with the natural law.

Can someone tell me what natural law is? I’ve already gotten lots of suggestions to buy various books. I’m just looking for a brief explanation. Specifically, how is citing natural law any different from saying, this is what the church has traditionally taught?

 

[Thales]

Can someone tell me what natural law is? I’ve already gotten lots of suggestions to buy various books. I’m just looking for a brief explanation. Specifically, how is citing natural law any different from saying, this is what the church has traditionally taught?

Maybe this can help a little. I think everyone has some differing ideas about what natural law entails.

"…Aquinas distinguishes four kinds of law: (1) eternal law; (2) natural law; (3) human law; and (4) divine law. Eternal law is comprised of those laws that govern the nature of an eternal universe; as Susan Dimock (1999, 22) puts it, one can “think of eternal law as comprising all those scientific (physical, chemical, biological, psychological, etc.) ‘laws’ by which the universe is ordered.” Divine law is concerned with those standards that must be satisfied by a human being to achieve eternal salvation. One cannot discover divine law by natural reason alone; the precepts of divine law are disclosed only through divine revelation.

The natural law is comprised of those precepts of the eternal law that govern the behavior of beings possessing reason and free will. The first precept of the natural law, according to Aquinas, is the somewhat vacuous imperative to do good and avoid evil. Here it is worth noting that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of morality: what is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the rational nature of human beings. Good and evil are thus both objective and universal."

• Kenneth Einar Himma
  iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

 

[Leela]

Maybe this can help a little. I think everyone has some differing ideas about what natural law entails.

"…Aquinas distinguishes four kinds of law: (1) eternal law; (2) natural law; (3) human law; and (4) divine law. Eternal law is comprised of those laws that govern the nature of an eternal universe; as Susan Dimock (1999, 22) puts it, one can “think of eternal law as comprising all those scientific (physical, chemical, biological, psychological, etc.) ‘laws’ by which the universe is ordered.” Divine law is concerned with those standards that must be satisfied by a human being to achieve eternal salvation. One cannot discover divine law by natural reason alone; the precepts of divine law are disclosed only through divine revelation.

The natural law is comprised of those precepts of the eternal law that govern the behavior of beings possessing reason and free will. The first precept of the natural law, according to Aquinas, is the somewhat vacuous imperative to do good and avoid evil. Here it is worth noting that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of morality: what is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the rational nature of human beings. Good and evil are thus both objective and universal."

• Kenneth Einar Himma
  iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

So why does homosexuality violate natural law?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So why does homosexuality violate natural law?

Part of being a good father is recognizing the function of the mother. No matter how nice/good a person Bill & Ted are they will never ever mother a child…

Parts of Natural [Moral] Law include men providing for the welfare and safety of woman, wife, and children. A man’s natural attraction to a woman, along with their natural bonding is part of that plan. Similarly the bonding, mothering, nurturing, and general care giving to children, husbands, and parents is part of the woman’s design. The children produced in this design are society, and will later full fill the role of the man or woman. Certainly today society can afford many forms of protection and even the role of a provider. Notice the “Oct Mom” who will receive all her safety, protection, as welfare from society, which is you and I. Sadly though even this state welfare cannot overcome the natural balance, survey after survey, study after study, shows these children raised without a father are far more likely to be troubled individuals. These are why man changing the design is a violate of Natural [Moral] Law.

hope that helps