More questions about gay marriage

[edwest2]

First Point

I agree there is truth. My question was why do you mention ‘truth’ in the way you do? What does the phrase mean to you in the context of how you are using the word?

Second Point

Do you think that a legislated definition of marriage - should exclude gay marriage? Is this a peculiarly american stance? What about the wider picture of equal rights, or giving a minority a voice.

Truth has no particular nationality. The gay community has existed for a long time. Only recently have some gay people given up their right to privacy and the previous “stay out of my bedroom” idea. The LGBT people I worked with in the past were not angry at work, and I didn’t give a second thought about what their private lives were like. We got along.

What kid of equality is desired here? Gay marriage denies biology and the truth about our own bodies. It is not equal to heterosexual marriage in that the unions are not based on reality.

Man + Woman
Man + Man
Woman + Woman

Only one of the above reflects the reality that has brought the human population into the billions. A gay marriage does not change the truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

1. Now that gay marriage is legalized in over 30 US states, am I correct to say that the issue is now coming off the table, and that it will no longer be so angrily discussed in Catholic circles?

I suspect that it will become like civil divorce. Divorce remains contrary to Catholic doctrine, but I do not see a huge fuss being made about it. I think that SSM will go the same way. It will remain against Catholic doctrine but that there will not be any major effort put into changing the law.

$0.02

rossum

 

[AprilFoolish]

Because the Catholic Church teaches the truth. Homosexuality is disordered.

Since that truth existed before the Catholic Church was established it is true because it is the truth…not because that is what the Church says.

Actually equal rights have no bearing on the legislated definition of marriage. Government has no business defining marriage at all.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

Can you define what you mean by ‘the truth’

In a democracy we are free to enact legislation - that is a fundamental part of politics. For all sorts of reasons, it helps society to define what marriage is. Why certain religions feel a compulsion to be involved in marriage at all, escapes me, especially for those who wish to be married but do not follow any particular God or religion.

Arguably the laws of any country will ultimately reflect its people’s morality. Religion and morality do not sit well together and a particular religion’s moral view should not overly influence a fair and open society - just look at the middle east.

 

[epan]

What are men and women for? Why do humans come in two sexually complementary types? Does continuation of the species have anything to do with it? Do children have something to do with it?

For thousands of years, marriage has been the institution which regulated sexual intercourse between man and woman. Polygamy might have been recognized but it was always men and women—sexually complementary. Some societies recognized homosexual relations but did not count them as marital, since they could never be procreative.

But within what? Ten years? We have outgrown thousands of years of anthropology, biology, and anatomy.

The fact is, same sex unions are not marital. They can never be marital. They can never be conjugal. There’s no point in calling such unions something that they are not and can never be.

I believe that the sweep of the expansion of human rights for social justice is morally good. For example, I believe that that abolition of slavery, and the continued efforts in favor of equal rights for all races is good. I believe that the American experiment in democracy, which created the first state with no no state religion, thereby conferring freedom and protection of of religious belief is good. I believe that conferring the right to vote on all persons of majority age is good. I believe that equal rights for women is good. I believe that equal access for the disabled is good.

So, I am curious JimG. Do you agree with me on these issues?

If so, then your argument is that the expansion of civil rights is good for all of these groups, but not for homosexuals. That seems suspiciously like all that you (and the Catholic Church) is doing is trying to rationalize prejudice and bigotry.

Can you explain how our efforts toward social justice, over the centuries, has suddenly gone wrong? Keep in mind while you do that, that every person who has done so to oppose women’s rights, racial equality, etc. have been shown to have been nothing more than bigots, when viewed retrospectively through the lens of history.

 

[JimG]

I believe that the sweep of the expansion of human rights for social justice is morally good. For example, I believe that that abolition of slavery, and the continued efforts in favor of equal rights for all races is good. I believe that the American experiment in democracy, which created the first state with no no state religion, thereby conferring freedom and protection of of religious belief is good. I believe that conferring the right to vote on all persons of majority age is good. I believe that equal rights for women is good. I believe that equal access for the disabled is good.

So, I am curious JimG. Do you agree with me on these issues?

If so, then your argument is that the expansion of civil rights is good for all of these groups, but not for homosexuals. That seems suspiciously like all that you (and the Catholic Church) is doing is trying to rationalize prejudice and bigotry.

Can you explain how our efforts toward social justice, over the centuries, has suddenly gone wrong? Keep in mind while you do that, that every person who has done so to oppose women’s rights, racial equality, etc. have been shown to have been nothing more than bigots, when viewed retrospectively through the lens of history.

What does any of that have to do with the question, what are men and women for?
Why are there men and women?
Why is sexual complementarity a fact of nature?

Of course, it has to do with children. Historically, the state has also thought that it had to do with children. If it had nothing to do with the procreative power of men and women, the state would have and should have no special interest in sexual liaisons.

Children are subject to whatever adults throw at them. The reason for making a marriage vow for life is to ensure that the children born of that union have a mom and a dad and a stable family. That can’t be guaranteed, of course, but the law did a better job of protecting children and families in the years before no fault divorce. Now, children are simply at the mercy of adult’s whims.

A sexual union of two men or two women simply is not and can never be the equivalent of a sexual union between a sexually complementary couple: that is, a man and a woman. To call these two quite different things by the same name is a disservice and a manipulation. It will further contribute to the disintegration of families within a society, just as contraception, divorce, and extramarital sex have contributed to family disintegration. Further disintegration is not needed. It will make things worse.

The disintegration of families has further shifted the burden of care for children, the elderly, and the disabled, from families to the state. We are now experiencing stresses within the state because the shift has become untenable and unsustainable. I’m afraid that eventually, the state will be unable to continue to function as the de fact dad for millions of fatherless families. Can it possibly cope with an out of wedlock birth rate of 42% to 70%? When the state can no longer handle the burden, the burden will try to shift back to families, but families will already have disintegrated to the point of inability to handle it. The resulting social chaos will put us in a place which we have not experienced since the great depression.

That’s not a happy thought. But I expect that the collapse of families will have real consequences. (For a review of the statistics of the social consequences of the sexual revolution up to this point, I would recommend Mary Eberstadt’s book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”)

 

[kozlosap]

I believe that the sweep of the expansion of human rights for social justice is morally good. For example, I believe that that abolition of slavery, and the continued efforts in favor of equal rights for all races is good. I believe that the American experiment in democracy, which created the first state with no no state religion, thereby conferring freedom and protection of of religious belief is good. I believe that conferring the right to vote on all persons of majority age is good. I believe that equal rights for women is good. I believe that equal access for the disabled is good.

So, I am curious JimG. Do you agree with me on these issues?

If so, then your argument is that the expansion of civil rights is good for all of these groups, but not for homosexuals. That seems suspiciously like all that you (and the Catholic Church) is doing is trying to rationalize prejudice and bigotry.

Can you explain how our efforts toward social justice, over the centuries, has suddenly gone wrong? Keep in mind while you do that, that every person who has done so to oppose women’s rights, racial equality, etc. have been shown to have been nothing more than bigots, when viewed retrospectively through the lens of history.

Epan, please go back and reread JimG’s posts from the last years - he is in no way a bigot. We do not agree on most social issues, but that doesn’t mean that he is a homophobe or an unrational bigot. JimG is polite and non-confrontational in his postings. Yes, it is hard for me to understand those who do not agree with me, but if everyone agreed with me, this world would be a pretty boring place!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Can you define what you mean by ‘the truth’

Great question, April

When I say “Truth” I mean simply that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

In a democracy we are free to enact legislation - that is a fundamental part of politics. For all sorts of reasons, it helps society to define what marriage is. Why certain religions feel a compulsion to be involved in marriage at all, escapes me, especially for those who wish to be married but do not follow any particular God or religion.

I essentially agree with you.

The Catholic Church did not invent marriage as an institution limited to heterosexual couples. Neither did the state.

Marriage is a pre-political and natural phenomenon that arises out of the nature of human beings. The Catholic Church, along with virtually every religion and culture in the world recognizes and supports this natural institution because without it, no society will exist or flourish.

No one, at the dawn of time. sat down with a blue-ribbon committee of sociologists and politicians to create marriage.

Marriage grows out of a natural affinity and complementarity of male and female. In other words, the ways in which one gender completes the other emotionally, spiritually and physically.

Most of our natural inclinations can be developed and accomplished through our own efforts. We can fulfill our inclinations towards preserving our health, satisfying our
hunger, learning, seeking the beautiful, through our own solitary efforts. Even if others assist us in reaching these goals, it is our own efforts that ultimately are determinative of our fulfillment. But the inclination, natural desire and capacity towards procreation and creation of a family **can only be fulfilled through the union of a man and woman. **(TRUTH)

Couples of the same sex lack the capacity to consummate a natural marriage for the simple reason that they lack the complementarity of male and female. (TRUTH)

Arguably the laws of any country will ultimately reflect its people’s morality. Religion and morality do not sit well together and a particular religion’s moral view should not overly influence a fair and open society - just look at the middle east.

I can’t speak for the middle east.

In the United States our Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding an Establishment Clause violation. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause. But no law purports to do so.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

I think, from a Catholic standpoint, it won’t change anything. From a political standpoint, it will become a non-issue if/when the Supreme Court upholds “gay marriage” as a right, like they did abortion. If they surprise us and leave it up to the state, then it will still be an active issue.

I can say that, as a Catholic, abortion is a much more serious issue from a political standpoint.

 

[edwest2]

I think, from a Catholic standpoint, it won’t change anything. From a political standpoint, it will become a non-issue if/when the Supreme Court upholds “gay marriage” as a right, like they did abortion. If they surprise us and leave it up to the state, then it will still be an active issue.

I can say that, as a Catholic, abortion is a much more serious issue from a political standpoint.

I disagree. The Church has defined marriage. A redefinition of marriage will remain an issue. Laws are not always good or right.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think, from a Catholic standpoint, it won’t change anything. From a political standpoint, it will become a non-issue if/when the Supreme Court upholds “gay marriage” as a right, like they did abortion. If they surprise us and leave it up to the state, then it will still be an active issue.

I can say that, as a Catholic, abortion is a much more serious issue from a political standpoint.

The Supreme Court could NOT uphold “gay marriage” because The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.

Rightly so, the Court refused to rule on the cases, and left the lower court’s decisions intact. The question of same sex marriage is now left up to the states.

The downside to this is that now unelected liberal judges will be able to overturn state laws based on what they call “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the equal protection frame-work”.

Here is the danger: A judge rules that the presence of two members of the opposite sex is as rationally related to marriage as white skin and men only is to voting. That is scary!
Acceptance of this argument would mean that all of us who maintain traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage are bigots or superstitious fools.

 

[JimG]

The Supreme Court could NOT uphold “gay marriage” because The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.

Rightly so, the Court refused to rule on the cases, and left the lower court’s decisions intact. The question of same sex marriage is now left up to the states.

The downside to this is that now unelected liberal judges will be able to overturn state laws based on what they call “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the equal protection frame-work”.

Here is the danger: A judge rules that the presence of two members of the opposite sex is as rationally related to marriage as white skin and men only is to voting. That is scary!
Acceptance of this argument would mean that all of us who maintain traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage are bigots or superstitious fools.

The strangest part of this, or at least one strange part, is that those who authored the equal protection framework of the 14th amendment never heard of ‘sexual orientation’ and would have been perplexed how such a concept could fit into their framework. Had it been explained to them by some time-traveler, they would likely have reworked the whole thing to exclude such a possibility.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

I disagree. The Church has defined marriage. A redefinition of marriage will remain an issue. Laws are not always good or right.

Peace,
Ed

So, you are saying that “gay marriage” is as important or more important than abortion. You are right, then…we disagree. Divorce and contraception are also clear teaching, but I don’t see us in any political fights about either of those. Do you? The same will happen regarding “gay marriage,” in my opinion.

That said, I agree with Zoltan Cobalt that we will continue to fight it at the state level as long as it is still up to the states. I don’t agree with Zoltan regarding his point about the Supreme Court and constitutionality. The exact same reasoning regarding the Constitution and abortion did not keep the Supreme Court from declaring it a “right of privacy” that the Constitution protects. I don’t take anything as a given when it comes to Supreme Court rulings.

 

[edwest2]

So, you are saying that “gay marriage” is as important or more important than abortion. You are right, then…we disagree. Divorce and contraception are also clear teaching, but I don’t see us in any political fights about either of those. Do you? The same will happen regarding “gay marriage,” in my opinion.

That said, I agree with Zoltan Cobalt that we will continue to fight it at the state level as long as it is still up to the states. I don’t agree with Zoltan regarding his point about the Supreme Court and constitutionality. The exact same reasoning regarding the Constitution and abortion did not keep the Supreme Court from declaring it a “right of privacy” that the Constitution protects. I don’t take anything as a given when it comes to Supreme Court rulings.

The Supreme Court turned its back on rational decisions regarding sexual matters starting in 1973. I am totally not referring to politics but the truth. Our bodies reveal who we are. If that is ignored and the legally incorrect definition of marriage stands, it will be wrong because it ignores reality.

Roe v. Wade is a perfect example.

youtube.com/watch?v=MYNyaNNq8Xg

Peace,
Ed

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

The Supreme Court turned its back on rational decisions regarding sexual matters starting in 1973. I am totally not referring to politics but the truth. Our bodies reveal who we are. If that is ignored and the legally incorrect definition of marriage stands, it will be wrong because it ignores reality.

Roe v. Wade is a perfect example.

youtube.com/watch?v=MYNyaNNq8Xg

Peace,
Ed

So, we are in complete agreement then? You are a confusing individual.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So, you are saying that “gay marriage” is as important or more important than abortion. You are right, then…we disagree. Divorce and contraception are also clear teaching, but I don’t see us in any political fights about either of those. Do you? The same will happen regarding “gay marriage,” in my opinion.

That said, I agree with Zoltan Cobalt that we will continue to fight it at the state level as long as it is still up to the states. I don’t agree with Zoltan regarding his point about the Supreme Court and constitutionality. The exact same reasoning regarding the Constitution and abortion did not keep the Supreme Court from declaring it a “right of privacy” that the Constitution protects. ** I don’t take anything as a given when it comes to Supreme Court rulings.**

Right Sunny…and remember that a Supreme Court ruling can be overturned by the next Supreme court. Or…better yet…a new law can be written that meets Constitutional scrutiny…and the Supreme Court can’t touch it.

Oh, and BTW…You can’t agree with Zoltan on one thing and disagree with me on another.
You’re either with me or against me…OK

…and go easy with EdWest…he is a FORUM Elder…you know.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Right Sunny…and remember that a Supreme Court ruling can be overturned by the next Supreme court. Or…better yet…a new law can be written that meets Constitutional scrutiny…and the Supreme Court can’t touch it.

Oh, and BTW…You can’t agree with Zoltan on one thing and disagree with me on another.
You’re either with me or against me…OK

Hahaha…okay, okay, I’m with you. Don’t shoot!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Hahaha…okay, okay, I’m with you. Don’t shoot!

Yeah, yeah…welcome aboard…and keep the faith

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Right Sunny…and remember that a Supreme Court ruling can be overturned by the next Supreme court. Or…better yet….a new law can be written that meets Constitutional scrutiny…and the Supreme Court can’t touch it.

Oh, and BTW…You can’t agree with Zoltan on one thing and disagree with me on another.
You’re either with me or against me…OK

…and go easy with EdWest…he is a FORUM Elder…you know.

Oh, but one minor correction…if it’s allowed. A new amendment can be written, then the Supreme Court can’t touch it. Any law can be touched and twisted, etc…

 

[andrewstx]

I mean that you admit that there is such a thing as “truth”.

If this were a democracy, gay marriage would not exist. Every state that defined marriage as between a man and a woman did so by MAJORITY vote.

Now wouldn’t that be a great system???

But what of those who aren’t in the majority. They don’t count at all? Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority?

I live in a small town where the over whelming majority are the same. Sounds like a conservative paradise no? Not if you are not in the majority. Nearly all here are fundamental Protestants. If you are Catholic, sorry you just don’t matter. They all dress and vote (tea party) the same, they same drink vats of beer, listen to the same music on the one radio station. If you don’t conform to the tee you are a pariah. They may speak to you at the market or c-store. But that is strictly it. Only Caucasions matter here, they prevent the poor and minorities from voting by an unjust voter ID law.

Read homosexuality into this all. If it is unjust in one place, it is unjust in every place. I think if God wanted all people to be indentical, God would have given every man or woman the same desires and tastes. God obviously didn’t do that.

 

[edwest2]

But what of those who aren’t in the majority. They don’t count at all? Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority?

I live in a small town where the over whelming majority are the same. Sounds like a conservative paradise no? Not if you are not in the majority. Nearly all here are fundamental Protestants. If you are Catholic, sorry you just don’t matter. They all dress and vote (tea party) the same, they same drink vats of beer, listen to the same music on the one radio station. If you don’t conform to the tee you are a pariah. They may speak to you at the market or c-store. But that is strictly it. Only Caucasions matter here, they prevent the poor and minorities from voting by an unjust voter ID law.

Read homosexuality into this all. If it is unjust in one place, it is unjust in every place. I think if God wanted all people to be indentical, God would have given every man or woman the same desires and tastes. God obviously didn’t do that.

“desires and tastes”? At our core, regardless of ‘tastes,’ we are children of God. Ignoring that is another example of ignoring the truth. Each one of has different gifts and we should use them as the Holy Spirit intended.

Peace,
Ed