New Jersey court ruling opens door for homosexual “marriage”

[fix]

And is heterosexual cohabitation, one parent families (where the father may not even be known), multiple divorces (even among Catholics) so consistent with the public good?

No, it is bad. Should we continue to widen the spectrum so more and more bad policy is encouraged?

I’d say that, regardless of whether a couple is heterosexual or homosexual, a union can be disastrous or successful. It is always up to the couple.

Nope, that is not true. Some unions are objectively wrong no matter the circumstances. That heterosexual unions at times may deviate from the proper norm in no way means the exception out to be the rule and the rule the exception.

I’m not going to beat this topic to death. The existence of civil unions isn’t going to topple the Republic, and I’m neither for nor against them. Time will tell.

It is another nail in the coffin of Western civilization. It is another way to corrupt youth. It is another attempt to further the moral chaos so many desire.

 

[Karin]

You are presuming that all consider it disordered sexual desire. That’s not necessarily so. Certainly some state legislatures and courts haven’t considered it to be such. So those who oppose or propose tolerance can battle it out in the legislatures.

*Knowing that homosexuality is the desire for a perverted relationship with someone of the same sex, the Catechism states the ‘psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.’ We know that the problem lies in the thinking and in the heart as Scripture says in Mt 15:10. This leaves the question — Why and how does the heart come to desire homosexuality? This is the ‘psychological genesis’ that is unclear. There could be many explanations for the genesis of this disordered desire of the heart: Personal choice; Dominating Mother; Lack of a Father figure; Abused as a child; Peer pressure; Experimentation; Societal permissiveness; Misplaced trust in an authority figure; etc.

**Whatever the genesis, the person is still responsible for knowing the Moral Law and for correcting disordered ***
thinking.
renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/051010

 

[Richardols]

Nope, that is not true. Some unions are objectively wrong no matter the circumstances.

If a heterosexual couple has a successful and loving long-term, unto death relationship, that’s great. Same with two homosexuals. If either couple doesn’t, then, yes, I’d agree that the unions were wrong.

It is another nail in the coffin of Western civilization. It is another way to corrupt youth. It is another attempt to further the moral chaos so many desire.

Well, you certainly have a strong opinion about it. Okay.

 

[fix]

If a heterosexual couple has a successful and loving long-term, unto death relationship, that’s great. Same with two homosexuals. If either couple doesn’t, then, yes, I’d agree that the unions were wrong.

Again, definitions matter. What is loving? What is successful? What is a union?

What is always striking to me is that these types of issues are met with indifference. I am not accusing you of this, but do you think it is possible we have murdered our consciences to such a degree that we fail to be scandalized and righteously angered when we ought to be?

 

[Richardols]

Again, definitions matter. What is loving? What is successful? What is a union?

Agree that there has to be some definition of loving, successful, long-term, etc. to evaluate any relationship between two individuals.

 

[fix]

Agree that there has to be some definition of loving, successful, long-term, etc. to evaluate any relationship between two individuals.

Yes, so what are those definitions?

 

[Richardols]

do you think it is possible with have murdered our consciences to such a degree that we fail to be scandalized and righteously angered when we ought to be?

True. Look at the indifference to sex-driven advertising. Look at our almost totally sex-driven entertainment industry. Look at the indifference to our Administration’s tolerance of torture. Look at the indifference to cohabitation, just to name a few.

See, conservatives and progressives can agree on a few things.

 

[Richardols]

Yes, so what are those definitions?

I’m not the one to define them. Anything I’d say would be no more than IMO. But, the definitions should be fairly obvious to most.

 

[eileen709]

If a heterosexual couple has a successful and loving long-term, unto death relationship, that’s great. Same with two homosexuals. If either couple doesn’t, then, yes, I’d agree that the unions were wrong.

Well, you certainly have a strong opinion about it. Okay.

Is this a practicing Catholic that I just quoted and is this a Catholic forum??? I don’t understand the silence of practicing Catholics. The homosexual life style is sinful. God the Father made an example of what is ahead if this life style continues. Jesus didn’t come to change the law but to fullfill it. Let’s start to comfront this issue, lovingly, but with Truth and take our lumps if that is God’s will.

 

[fix]

I’m not the one to define them. Anything I’d say would be no more than IMO. But, the definitions should be fairly obvious to most.

So, if one says they “love” their pet ought they be permitted a civil union?

I think the definitions are not obvious. I think sentimentalism and emotionalism inform people’s position more than authentic definitions.

This problem goes to your point about heterosexual unions that are failed. Often the failure happens when we fail to understand what loves intends, what obligations intend and what our final destination really is.

 

[Richardols]

I think the definitions are not obvious. I think sentimentalism and emotionalism inform people’s position more than authentic definitions.

Sure, as they have for centuries. No disagreement here.

This problem goes to your point about heterosexual unions that are failed. Often the failure happens when we fail to understand what loves intends, what obligations intend and what our final destination really is.

True for all failed deep relationships, sure.

 

[a_cermak]

So, if one says they “love” their pet ought they be permitted a civil union?

I think the definitions are not obvious. I think sentimentalism and emotionalism inform people’s position more than authentic definitions.

This problem goes to your point about heterosexual unions that are failed. Often the failure happens when we fail to understand what loves intends, what obligations intend and what our final destination really is.

So which person in the gay union is the pet? I don’t consider that a helpful analogy.

No one is suggesting that gay unions should be recognized by the Catholic Church. But society is made up of a lot more people than just affirming Catholics.

And many denoms have pretty much tossed Natural Law onto the ashcan of history. So arguments using Natural Law while useful for intra-Church debate, is not wholly useful for society in general.

 

[Karin]

So which person in the gay union is the pet?

Well considering that some lesbians practice “tribadism” I would think that they where both animals…
I mean my neighbors dog does this…

 

[fix]

So which person in the gay union is the pet? I don’t consider that a helpful analogy.

I used it to point out the absurdity of it all. Simply wanting a marital union because one throws around the word love or committment is no justification.

No one is suggesting that gay unions should be recognized by the Catholic Church. But society is made up of a lot more people than just affirming Catholics.

It is not a sectarian issue. Civil laws out not contradict the natural moral law.

And many denoms have pretty much tossed Natural Law onto the ashcan of history. So arguments using Natural Law while useful for intra-Church debate, is not wholly useful for society in general.

Again that many, or few, can’t grasp the natural law for various reasons does not mean that civil society can disregard it. In fact, they disregard now and we see the results in all types of moral pathology.

Your position would seem to make the majority rule no matter such a rule is evil. What is your basis for morality?

 

[a_cermak]

Your position would seem to make the majority rule no matter such a rule is evil. What is your basis for morality?

I separate morality from law. The most or least I can expect from my fellow man is that he follows the laws that were enacted by duly elected representatives.

Laws should not contradict other laws and they should not contradict the relevant Constitutions.

 

[fix]

I separate morality from law. The most or least I can expect from my fellow man is that he follows the laws that were enacted by duly elected representatives.

Laws should not contradict other laws and they should not contradict the relevant Constitutions.

How are these things to be interpreted without understanding morality? What is a right? Who gave them to us?

 

[a_cermak]

How are these things to be interpreted without understanding morality? What is a right? Who gave them to us?

The Constitution gave us our rights. And in my case, the IL Constitution gave me other rights. Those Constitutions were written and ratified by representatives of We the people. It’s all about consent of the governed.

How are these things to be interpreted without morality? The courts do that every day. I’ve not seen too many opinions that do refer to morality. Most often, they refer to other cases or other legislation.

 

[fix]

The Constitution gave us our rights. And in my case, the IL Constitution gave me other rights. Those Constitutions were written and ratified by representatives of We the people. It’s all about consent of the governed.

How are these things to be interpreted without morality? The courts do that every day. I’ve not seen too many opinions that do refer to morality. Most often, they refer to other cases or other legislation.

So, laws against murder are not based on morality?

 

[a_cermak]

So, laws against murder are not based on morality?

Nope. If I recall correctly, they are based on the need to keep social order. Most homicide laws did not exist say in the year 500 AD because of the fact that the clan or tribal group could keep this in check by seeking their own justice (vengeance). The thing is after a while it becomes very hard to have social order when you have all these clans at war with each other, so laws against murder were enacted so that the responsibility for punishing murder was on the state, not the clan.

 

[fix]

Nope. If I recall correctly, they are based on the need to keep social order. Most homicide laws did not exist say in the year 500 AD because of the fact that the clan or tribal group could keep this in check by seeking their own justice (vengeance). The thing is after a while it becomes very hard to have social order when you have all these clans at war with each other, so laws against murder were enacted so that the responsibility for punishing murder was on the state, not the clan.

Is not social order a form of morality? It presupposes there is a “right” way and a “wrong” way to live in society.