Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?

[inocente]

You need to display your sources.

Found the post - “though church fathers are divided about this, St. Athanasius and Augustine thinking that this talks about heterosexual activity”. Can’t say if that’s right but you may know more about their writings than me.

Uh the Apostles and all the disciples that walked with Jesus. St. Paul was another one. Really you should know this if you are a Christian.

Oh. Does that mean you’re not a fan of the Aquinas natural law argument used by the Church? I mean it came later, after God spoke to the Church.

You are the group wanting to change the definition of a social institution that has been around at least in all of recorded history.

Already got changed in my country and others, done and dusted. Up to you guys what you do in the States, but remember the US has less than 5% of the world population.

From what I understand in Spain the Church is getting squeezed out by relativism and Islam and that the Western European Church is hurting.

There’s some economic immigration from Africa but Islam hasn’t made any inroads. Most people are still Catholic in outlook, but the Church doesn’t seem to be responding in any way to the falling away. Well, I suppose it’s not my Church but it would by good to see some action.

 

[colmcille1]

Much of the damage inflicted on the RCC in Ireland, is, unfortunately, self-inflicted. There, like in the states, there was horrendous and widespread abuse of children for decades, and worse, a response that treated victims as a zero priority, even to this day. It’s my sense that the wounds are even deeper there because of the universal and virtually unquestioned trust the Irish people held in the church for countless centuries. Wealth and the temptations of the modern secular world play a part, I’m sure, but they are not nearly enough to account for the unravelling of 14 centuries of faith in the span of one generation.

You should understand that I am not an atheist but pagan, one who had a very deep Catholic education in his youth. I am not seeking converts or to dissuade anyone from their faith at all. My points on this particular thread are only two-fold. One, my belief that no one has risen to the challenge of the OP, that is, to offer a rational, non-religious argument agaist the recognition of gay marriage. Second, it is my observation that opposing gay marriage does not in and of itself make one a hateful person. That said, I almost never see the face of your Christ reflected in the faces of those Christians (Catholic and non), who make culture wars their primary crusade.

Hi kenofken,
I agree to some extant about the self-inflicted wounds of the CC in Ireland.
However, the issue of abusive priests merits a closer examination and said scrutiny is not provided by the media here. For example, the number of priests convicted of those awful crimes amounts to less than 1% of the entire body of priests operating in the State during the years under investigation. And a study has shown that the incidence of sexual abuse within a setting other than a religious institution (home, sports clubs etc) was greater than that recorded in relation to said religious places. (I can’t recall the name of said study offhand but I’ll get back to you on this.)

The “unravelling of 14 centuries of Faith in the span of one generation” is a myth.
The Irish people still cling to a deep Faith even though Mass attendance is down. It was the Church who willingly led us in the dire economic stress this country endured for centuries.
Remember, the Church itself suffered badly under the Penal Laws. This too merits close study.

Why are you surprised that a “non-religious argument” has not been tendered? Is it not testament to the strength of Faith that such an argument may perhaps be unnecessary?
Or is it your contention that it is merely a secular concept the gay lobbyists seek? As I pointed out on another thread, this latter stance won’t wash with people of Faith because it is rightly viewed as just another battle to be won before full-blown marriage itself is attacked outright. This is a long-view war. To pretend otherwise is naive.

I don’t know where you are coming from with your last point re “the face of your Christ”.
Suffice to say that I have seen plenty of rabid anti-Catholicism and I thank the Almighty that it only deepens my love for my fellow-man theough Him.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kenofken]

Hi kenofken,
I agree to some extant about the self-inflicted wounds of the CC in Ireland.
However, the issue of abusive priests merits a closer examination and said scrutiny is not provided by the media here. For example, the number of priests convicted of those awful crimes amounts to less than 1% of the entire body of priests operating in the State during the years under investigation. And a study has shown that the incidence of sexual abuse within a setting other than a religious institution (home, sports clubs etc) was greater than that recorded in relation to said religious places. (I can’t recall the name of said study offhand but I’ll get back to you on this.)

The “unravelling of 14 centuries of Faith in the span of one generation” is a myth.
The Irish people still cling to a deep Faith even though Mass attendance is down. It was the Church who willingly led us in the dire economic stress this country endured for centuries.
Remember, the Church itself suffered badly under the Penal Laws. This too merits close study.

Why are you surprised that a “non-religious argument” has not been tendered? Is it not testament to the strength of Faith that such an argument may perhaps be unnecessary?
Or is it your contention that it is merely a secular concept the gay lobbyists seek? As I pointed out on another thread, this latter stance won’t wash with people of Faith because it is rightly viewed as just another battle to be won before full-blown marriage itself is attacked outright. This is a long-view war. To pretend otherwise is naive.

I don’t know where you are coming from with your last point re “the face of your Christ”.
Suffice to say that I have seen plenty of rabid anti-Catholicism and I thank the Almighty that it only deepens my love for my fellow-man theough Him.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

The 1% figure is often quoted here, but it’s a poor defense in my eyes for several reasons. One is that we’ll never know the true incidence of priest abuse because until quite recently, virtually 100% of cases were hidden from authorities and communities, allowing the perpetrators to die gracefully of old age with the truth never coming out. Further, what does it mean to say that the church has an abuse rate that is on par with the rest of the world or “pretty good” relative to it? It’s useful perhaps for perspective, but at some point it also becomes an argument for moral relatavism.

The real issue that has people enraged isn’t the fact that some priests were abusers. Some make their way into any profession where they can have access to victims. The problem has never been the 1%, but rather the fact that bishops failed to do the right thing 100% of the time for 60 years and counting. The mountains of documents which have come out show that this was not, for the most part, well-meaning naive mistakes, but a calculated policy that put victims dead last in priority. These guys colluded with child predators to conceal their crimes and put them in further situations to have access to more victims. This goes beyond a lapse in canon law or procedure or the occaisional failure of character. This was an enterprise which systematically did the one thing for which Christ advocated the death penalty. This is stuff that will take several generations of hard work to regain trust, and most people here, and I suspect in Ireland, are not seeing true contrition on their part. Based on what I know firsthand from our own archdiocese and from what I observe elsewhere, I truly believe that if the leadership could wave a magic wand and make the media and victims groups and lawyers go away, they would return to the old ways by the close of business today. I hope I’m wrong about that, but my gut tells me otherwise.

I’m not surprised that a non-religious argument against gay marriage has not been tendered. I could not think of one after years of effort, but I figured perhaps someone clever had. There are of course religious arguments instead, and that’s fine for people to advocate, but it’s no basis for making public policy in our country at least. The closest thing I’ve seen to a secular argument is one based on fear - the conviction that gay people are out to systematically destroy religion and churches. I don’t see that to be true. For every radical activist, there are 1,000 others who really just want to settle in the suburbs and worry about their retirement like everyone else. Even to the extent it may be true, I just don’t see how the concept of “pre-emptive self defense” squares with civil society or any form of Christianity, save perhaps some sort of twisted Calvinism. It’s a bit like shooting one’s neighbor in the back while they’re doing yard work because you have a sincere conviction that they mean to do you harm someday. Even if you can produce some evidence that your fear was well-founded, it won’t wash before the prosecutor or a jury.

It also has the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. People who are otherwise neutral toward Christianity may wind up making common cause with the radical gays if churches continue to be seen as reactionary anti-civil rights forces. People with even nominal Christian identity are going to become a decided minority in 50 year’s time in this country and will lose much of their hold over society long before then. That’s not meant in a mean-spirited way, it’s just demographic fact. It would pay for all of us to learn how to make some accomodation for each other.

 

[colmcille1]

The 1% figure is often quoted here, but it’s a poor defense in my eyes for several reasons. One is that we’ll never know the true incidence of priest abuse because until quite recently, virtually 100% of cases were hidden from authorities and communities, allowing the perpetrators to die gracefully of old age with the truth never coming out. Further, what does it mean to say that the church has an abuse rate that is on par with the rest of the world or “pretty good” relative to it? It’s useful perhaps for perspective, but at some point it also becomes an argument for moral relatavism.

No. Moral relativism operates as a supposedly positive stance. (e.g." I support prostitution but only on week-ends whereas that guy next door supports it 24/7"). Your thinking is faulty here. Why would the Church trumpet something that has brought it deserved shame?

The real issue that has people enraged isn’t the fact that some priests were abusers. Some make their way into any profession where they can have access to victims. The problem has never been the 1%, but rather the fact that bishops failed to do the right thing 100% of the time for 60 years and counting. The mountains of documents which have come out show that this was not, for the most part, well-meaning naive mistakes, but a calculated policy that put victims dead last in priority. These guys colluded with child predators to conceal their crimes and put them in further situations to have access to more victims. This goes beyond a lapse in canon law or procedure or the occaisional failure of character. This was an enterprise which systematically did the one thing for which Christ advocated the death penalty. This is stuff that will take several generations of hard work to regain trust, and most people here, and I suspect in Ireland, are not seeing true contrition on their part. Based on what I know firsthand from our own archdiocese and from what I observe elsewhere, I truly believe that if the leadership could wave a magic wand and make the media and victims groups and lawyers go away, they would return to the old ways by the close of business today. I hope I’m wrong about that, but my gut tells me otherwise.

**You are **wrong about that. The Church is dealing with massive settlement cases through the courts. As you know, these can take years. With respect, what you “believe” is irrelevent.
Is your emotive bias not getting too tight a hold here?

I’m not surprised that a non-religious argument against gay marriage has not been tendered. I could not think of one after years of effort, but I figured perhaps someone clever had. There are of course religious arguments instead, and that’s fine for people to advocate, but it’s no basis for making public policy in our country at least. The closest thing I’ve seen to a secular argument is one based on fear - the conviction that gay people are out to systematically destroy religion and churches. I don’t see that to be true. For every radical activist, there are 1,000 others who really just want to settle in the suburbs and worry about their retirement like everyone else. Even to the extent it may be true, I just don’t see how the concept of “pre-emptive self defense” squares with civil society or any form of Christianity, save perhaps some sort of twisted Calvinism. It’s a bit like shooting one’s neighbor in the back while they’re doing yard work because you have a sincere conviction that they mean to do you harm someday. Even if you can produce some evidence that your fear was well-founded, it won’t wash before the prosecutor or a jury.

Well, now your emotive bias seems to be hitting overdrive. I have always held it to be a sure sign of a weakness in debate when a fellow will speak in analogous terms and use this as his best defence. I’ve never bought it and refuse to start purchasing now!
May I suggest, kenofken, thay you are not fully au fait with the workings of the gay agenda. The true Catholic conscience challenges itself to challenge this world. When you speak in terms of the gay “marriage” as being somehow singled out for special objection, you betray an academic ignorance of Catholicism.

It also has the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. People who are otherwise neutral toward Christianity may wind up making common cause with the radical gays if churches continue to be seen as reactionary anti-civil rights forces. People with even nominal Christian identity are going to become a decided minority in 50 year’s time in this country and will lose much of their hold over society long before then. That’s not meant in a mean-spirited way, it’s just demographic fact. It would pay for all of us to learn how to make some accomodation for each other.

I seem to detect that, even if your statement that said “hold over society” actually existed, you would fervently wish it otherwise, not because you necessarily are anti-Faith, but because you have a deep mistrust of any authoritative institution which lays claim to truth-filled instruction for mankinds salvation.
That, alas, is where the tragedy of moral relativism lies.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kenofken]

I seem to detect that, even if your statement that said “hold over society” actually existed, you would fervently wish it otherwise, not because you necessarily are anti-Faith, but because you have a deep mistrust of any authoritative institution which lays claim to truth-filled instruction for mankinds salvation.
That, alas, is where the tragedy of moral relativism lies.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

It’s scary how well you know me! I do have a deep mistrust of any human or human institution which purports to know God’s will and attempts to act in a parental role to grown adults. For better and worse, that is my bias.

I still stand by what I said about pre-emptive self defense. Time and again, the final argument I hear on this forum is that whatever the theological basis of fighting gay marriage, we simply have to prevent them from gaining rights because they are fixing to take ours away. I don’t see how that reasoning can be constructed as anything else but a type of pre-emptive war, whether fought violently or metaphorically.

As to the abuse issue, I suppose time will tell how it plays out. I have no interest whatsoever in the church’s survival or diminishment. I live outside it for reasons much deeper than any one issue. However, I can say from 15 years in public policy journalism that some crisis response strategies work and others don’t Circling the wagons, denying the scope of the problem and blaming it on outsiders has never, ever worked. Not only have I not seen it work, I’ve never even heard third hand rumors of it working. But that will be learned the easy or the hard way by Rome, and I have no dog in that fight.

I confess I do have a level of emotional bias there too. I have a deep contempt and hatred for men who take advantage of society’s most vulnerable, whether it is done out of malice or cowardice. I would have more sympathy for the leadership’s plight if I had ever seen evidence of them doing the right thing when nobody was looking. Contrition and right action mean so much more when they’re done BEFORE a prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer has a rope around your neck.

 

[colmcille1]

It’s scary how well you know me! I do have a deep mistrust of any human or human institution which purports to know God’s will and attempts to act in a parental role to grown adults. For better and worse, that is my bias.

I still stand by what I said about pre-emptive self defense. Time and again, the final argument I hear on this forum is that whatever the theological basis of fighting gay marriage, we simply have to prevent them from gaining rights because they are fixing to take ours away. I don’t see how that reasoning can be constructed as anything else but a type of pre-emptive war, whether fought violently or metaphorically.

As to the abuse issue, I suppose time will tell how it plays out. I have no interest whatsoever in the church’s survival or diminishment.** I live outside it for reasons much deeper than any one issue.** However, I can say from 15 years in public policy journalism that some crisis response strategies work and others don’t Circling the wagons, denying the scope of the problem and blaming it on outsiders has never, ever worked. Not only have I not seen it work, I’ve never even heard third hand rumors of it working. But that will be learned the easy or the hard way by Rome, and I have no dog in that fight.

I confess I do have a level of emotional bias there too. I have a deep contempt and hatred for men who take advantage of society’s most vulnerable, whether it is done out of malice or cowardice. I would have more sympathy for the leadership’s plight if I had ever seen evidence of them doing the right thing when nobody was looking. Contrition and right action mean so much more when they’re done BEFORE a prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer has a rope around your neck.

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply. Forgive me, but I have a hunch that we may not make much progress on the issues we have so far addressed. No matter.
The Catholic Church that I love and cherish is home to a wide spectrum of people. Of all the major religions, Christianity is the one which has made the widest cross-cultural impact.
I state this as preamble to my question viz the highlighted sentence in your post.
Why do you feel that organized Faith could not joyfully plumb the depths of said reasons?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[ERose]

I decided to consolidate all of my arguments and borrowed some others that have been used on this forum for the sake of this thread. I personally believe all of these are viable arguments against gay marriage. Anyway here you go:
The Slippery Slope Argument is that if same sex marriage is allowed based on the 14th amendment (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) then all forms of marriage that can be conceived must be allowed as well. Examples: all forms polygamy, human/animal, incestuous couples, etc. So from this standpoint where does it end? Some gay rights defenders on this forum have expressed that these other types of marriages are damaging while the same-sex form of marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. Also these same defenders say that this is not the case in court rulings because the arguments used in court exclusively refer to same-sex marriage as in the case of Judge Walker’s ruling. Yet Judge Walker’s ruling on Prop8 was based upon other cases that had nothing to do with same-sex marriage so this argument doesn’t work:
Turner v Safely (allowing prisoners to marry without needing consent from warden)
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur (Unfair treatment of pregnant teachers)
Loving v Virginia (ruling on inter-racial marriages)
Griswold v Connecticut (ruling on the use of contraceptives)

The primary argument, proposed in courts for same-sex marriage, is based primarily on the equal protection clause. If same-sex marriage is legalized then any other un-traditional marriage group can use the ruling for and the arguments used by the same-sex groups. If you need proof of this just look north to our sister country Canada, who legalized gay marriage in 2005. Canada is now considering legalizing polygamy. The Green Party just recently voted it down a few weeks ago but I doubt the battle is over. Argument used by the polygamist? Gay marriage.
polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/canada-greens-may-push-to-decriminalize.html
By social definition of Marriage, same-sex marriages are not compatable. When evaluating the primary function and purpose of marriage, it is easy to conclude that the only reason why marriage exists in the first place is for procreation, establishing a stable environment to raise children, and regulate sexual behavior. All other purposes of marriage are secondary including mutual love between the couple. We all know that it requires a man and a woman to procreate, or in modern times sperm and an egg with a carrier. Of course, sperm come exclusively from males and eggs come exclusively from females. Thus no matter how you shake it; it requires a man and a woman.
Same-sex couplings are ALWAYS infertile and for a same-sex couple to have a child it ALWAYS requires a 3rd party to be involved. Thus, a child of a same-sex couple at best possesses the DNA of only one of the parents. Therefore, in a best-case scenario a same-sex family with children will always have one stepparent.
There are studies that show the best environment to raise children is a family with both biological parents involved in the rearing of the children.
blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/CDEV0009-3920~74~1~524%5C524.pdf
clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf
ryananddebi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Stacey-J2001.pdf
Even though in opposite-sex marriages there are a percentage of marriages where the children do have a stepparent, it is still a percentage where in same-sex couplings it is always the case.
The second article above points out that research shows that children raised in same-sex marriages are very similar statistically as those whose parents are divorced. It also pointed out that children of divorced parents do not have the same advantages of children in a normal marriage.
It has also been mentioned on this forum that this isn’t a valid argument because there are marriages allowed where one or both of the members is either unable or unwilling to have children. Three points here. 1.) For those parents that are unwilling, biologically they are still open to having a child either by accident or by latter changing their minds. 2.) For those that are unable to have children, I do not think anyone would like to have the government digging into the privacy of the individuals to determine fertility. I do believe that this would encroach upon a few privacy laws in this country. Therefore, the government has either intentionally or unintentionally used the one man and one woman requirement for marriage to minimize this possibility without dealing with the privacy issues. 3.) Concerning the heterosexual couples that are either unwilling or unable, they comprise a certain percentage of all heterosexual couples; while in same-sex relationships, it is always the case that they cannot on their own bear children.

 

[ERose]

It can be argued from a natural law view in two ways: pro-creation and by extinction. The primary natural function of sex is for pro-creation not pleasure. Even though we are designed to deprive pleasure from sexual intercourse, which I believe the evolutionist on this board would say that this trait was necessary to make sexual intercourse desirable and to induce sexual behavior to propagate the species. Thus biologically, the primary function of sex is pro-creation. Since same-sex sex cannot procreate, it is an insufficient form of sexual intercourse with its primary purpose being pleasure. Marriages built upon pleasure alone do not last that long (this is my assumption).
Same-sex couples cannot procreate without a 3rd party, so same-sex couples cannot carry on the human race alone. Therefore, the gay community requires heterosexual couplings to produce gay men and women since gay men and women cannot naturally produce other gay men and women. This is one of the better arguments against a “gay” gene. How is a “gay” gene passed down the line?
Judge Walker, in his ruling, and others have proposed that there is no significant evidence to show that heterosexual marriages are better than same-sex marriages. I would have to disagree and research either directly or indirectly supports this.
Again, I refer to Canada, which has been allowing gay marriages for 5 years now. In the below article proposed by the “queer” rights groups in Canada to the health department, evidence is supplied by gay groups outlining the issues that gay men and women endure due to their lifestyles. I will let you read it yourselves.
exacom.net/firstlibrary/Articles/Moral%20Issues/Homosexuality/Health%20consequences/HRC%20complaint.pdf
The most amazing statistic from this report is that the average lifespan of a gay man is 55 years. 55 YEARS. They also admit that it is due to the lifestyle choices of those in the gay community.
When evaluating and living in healthy marriages, there seems to be one primary requirement and that is trust. I think that all would agree that the primary factors for a loss of trust in a marriage are due to: 1) infidelity, 2) physical/mental abuse and 3) financial secrets. Baring financial secrets the first two are serious issues in the gay community and the lifestyle they choose especially in men, which there seems to be a lot more statistics on men than women. Anyway here you go:
Infidelity: research has shown that particularly gay men (not as much data on lesbians it seems) that infidelity is very high and at least 50% as per the NY times are “open” relationships. nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html Also the following website has some very good statistics on it as well that are footnoted: frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Granted the many proponents of same-sex marriages will probably disregard this website as bias but in my opinion the best unbiased stats available is the breakdown of AIDS victims. Personally, I do not think that AIDS is a “gay” disease but rather a “promiscuity” disease, which I think that we all can agree. The CDC reports that: “MSM (men have sex with men) made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.” cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm If this information is correct, one can easily induce that gay men must have much more sexual encounters that straight men. Also, if you have read the report above concerning Canadian gay health grievances that in Canada where marriage is legal is still having a major problem in its gay community concerning AIDS.

Abuse: Studies have shown that in gay relationships physical and mental abuse is more likely between couples. As attested in the following study on the American Bar Association website:
• One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
• 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted and/or stalked by a male partner, but 10.8% reported such violence by a female partner.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
So if trust is the primary factor of a healthy marriage from the information supplied one can reason that there will be fewer healthy marriages in the gay community.

 

[ERose]

The last argument I have is it proper to equate a lifestyle the same protections as race or ethnicity under the 14th amendment. From what I understand is that when interpreting one of the amendments in a court of law, the “original intent” of the amendment is taken into consideration. Obviously, this is the difference between “liberal” and “conservative” judges. Liberal judges interpret an amendment as they think it should be applied today, while conservative judges look at original intent. The original purpose of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment was to provide equal protection for all races and ethnicity. Thus the question is are “lifestyles” protected under the equal protection clause? One who interprets the amendment by its original intent would say no they are not.

Now people will try to argue that homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) isn’t a lifestyle. True, but living as an active gay is a lifestyle. Others will also say that being homosexual is not a choice. I think that can be debated since there has been no empirical proof of the “gay” gene. Even if there is a “gay” gene, the fact of the matter is that an individual must CHOOSE to live that lifestyle. They are not forced genetically or biologically to have sex with anyone. They may be tempted sexually, but still they are not in any way forced to live that lifestyle. In other words, it is a choice.

Others would like to equate homosexuality with being Black and as such hitch a ride on the civil rights movement. Others would like to refer to gays as a minority just like Blacks, Hispanics, etc. The major fallacy with this argument is that Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Native Americans, etc cannot wake up one day and cease to be what they are. I am of mixed heritage white & Indian. I was born with this heritage and I will die with this heritage. No matter how much I want to be other than that, there is nothing I can do about it. In other words, race and ethnicity are NOT choices.

The same cannot be said of gays. One is not born gay. At some point in their life he/she becomes gay. There are even those who at some point in their life cease being gay and become heterosexuals again. Thus they are not comparable.

I know that these are not all of the arguments against same-sex marriage out there and this is not an exhaustive list of arguments to say the least but these are the one I think personally are viable to the debate.

 

[ERose]

Found the post - “though church fathers are divided about this, St. Athanasius and Augustine thinking that this talks about heterosexual activity”. Can’t say if that’s right but you may know more about their writings than me.

Here is the actual quote of scripture in question: Rom 1: 26-27 “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.” I do believe that the interpretation is pretty straight forward. Now concerning the individual that you are quoting he did express his lack of certainity. You need to find a quote from the Father in question and not refer to another’s post.

Oh. Does that mean you’re not a fan of the Aquinas natural law argument used by the Church? I mean it came later, after God spoke to the Church.

I do not know how you got that out of our discussion. You originally asked when God spoke directly to man and I responded. How do go from one to the other?

Already got changed in my country and others, done and dusted. Up to you guys what you do in the States, but remember the US has less than 5% of the world population.

Ok, cannot disagree with you on this statement.

There’s some economic immigration from Africa but Islam hasn’t made any inroads. Most people are still Catholic in outlook, but the Church doesn’t seem to be responding in any way to the falling away. Well, I suppose it’s not my Church but it would by good to see some action.

Sorry about that I guess I was thinking of France. I did do some reading and it does seem that Muslims are the second largest religious group behind Catholics but the percentages to not come so I concede this point.

I really do feel for you country at this time. It seems to be moving at an incredible rate of speed to secular liberalism and I do find that as sad. I will pray for your country.

 

[Kevin42]

Response to ERose’s three posts:

1. The slippery slope argument has been repeatedly used, and repeatedly shot down. Human-animal relationships and adult-child will not (and cannot) be allowed because one of the parties is unable to consent to entering into a contract. Furthermore, while I could foresee a polygamist push for marriage rights, this is no reason to deny same same-sex couples the right to marry. I must say though, that it is still quite a jump that assume that polygamy will have to be allowed *because of same-sex marriage. *
2. The “social definition of marriage”, as you call it, should more likely be called, “the Catholic definition of marriage”. It is easy for* Catholics *to conclude that, as you say, “the only reason marriage exists in the first place is for procreation,” because the Church informs them that this is so and thus they are in some way or another compelled to believe this. However, as far as secular society goes, I believe you would be hard pressed to find many Americans who would give you the same answer if you were to ask them, “What is the purpose of marriage?” Furthermore, marriage requirement laws, at least as far as I am aware, do not contain any requirement that the couple be capable of having children. The state does not seem to have any interest in marriage as existing for the purpose of procreation. This argument seems to be nothing more than certain Catholics trying to force their beliefs onto citizens of the secular state. Finally, while it can be said that homosexuals cannot currently procreate without a third party, it is the case that homosexuals can procreate and can adopt. Homosexuals can and do therefore raise children while some heterosexual couples choose not to have or raise children.
3. If you look, you can find plenty of scholarly research that demonstrates that homosexual couples are just as effective when it comes to raising children as heterosexual couples, so I will not spend any time addressing this point.
4. Most of your second post seems to have little to offer this discussion. You discuss the “gay lifestyle”, abuse statistics, and the gay gene. None of these really have anything to do with marriage, but I will address them briefly. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic has yet to be determined, and really is not relevant. As for the gay lifestyle you speak of, there are gays who might live in the way you imagine the “gay lifestyle”, however, there are also those that do not. For that matter, there are heterosexual people who live a lifestyle similar to the “gay lifestyle”. While I doubt that the type of people you imagine would want to get married, not everyone (gay or straight) lives a certain lifestyle, and these are the people who DO want to get married. For instance, I am in a monogamous committed gay relationship and know several other couples who are as well. We do not have infidelity problems, we do not use drugs, we do not heavily drink, and we certainly do not abuse our partners. Besides the fact that many homosexuals do not live the way you might suggest they do, the fact remains that the problems you have noted are not exclusively homosexual problems.
5. Homosexuality is not a choice, and to suggest that it is, or that someone is not born gay and at some point “becomes gay” is completely without a factual base. If you will ask any homosexual whether or not they chose to be gay, you would come away with a resounding, “No, I did not.” As for homosexual relationships being a lifestyle choice, well I suppose they are as much of a lifestyle choice as heterosexual relationships are a choice. After all, no one is forcing heterosexuals to get married, it is their choice to have sex, form relationships, etcetera. While for you, this argument may work, because it seems to be a short step away from suggesting that the choice of a gay man or woman to pursue a relationship is bad, or even sinful, this becomes your religious argument. The majority of people however do not believe in Catholicism, and should not be forced to adhere to Catholic dogma.

 

[kenofken]

I decided to consolidate all of my arguments and borrowed some others that have been used on this forum for the sake of this thread. I personally believe all of these are viable arguments against gay marriage. Anyway here you go:
The Slippery Slope Argument is that if same sex marriage is allowed based on the 14th amendment (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) then all forms of marriage that can be conceived must be allowed as well. Examples: all forms polygamy, human/animal, incestuous couples, etc. So from this standpoint where does it end? Some gay rights defenders on this forum have expressed that these other types of marriages are damaging while the same-sex form of marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. Also these same defenders say that this is not the case in court rulings because the arguments used in court exclusively refer to same-sex marriage as in the case of Judge Walker’s ruling. Yet Judge Walker’s ruling on Prop8 was based upon other cases that had nothing to do with same-sex marriage so this argument doesn’t work:
Turner v Safely (allowing prisoners to marry without needing consent from warden)
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur (Unfair treatment of pregnant teachers)
Loving v Virginia (ruling on inter-racial marriages)
Griswold v Connecticut (ruling on the use of contraceptives)

The primary argument, proposed in courts for same-sex marriage, is based primarily on the equal protection clause. If same-sex marriage is legalized then any other un-traditional marriage group can use the ruling for and the arguments used by the same-sex groups. If you need proof of this just look north to our sister country Canada, who legalized gay marriage in 2005. Canada is now considering legalizing polygamy. The Green Party just recently voted it down a few weeks ago but I doubt the battle is over. Argument used by the polygamist? Gay marriage.
polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/canada-greens-may-push-to-decriminalize.html
By social definition of Marriage, same-sex marriages are not compatable. When evaluating the primary function and purpose of marriage, it is easy to conclude that the only reason why marriage exists in the first place is for procreation, establishing a stable environment to raise children, and regulate sexual behavior. All other purposes of marriage are secondary including mutual love between the couple. We all know that it requires a man and a woman to procreate, or in modern times sperm and an egg with a carrier. Of course, sperm come exclusively from males and eggs come exclusively from females. Thus no matter how you shake it; it requires a man and a woman.
Same-sex couplings are ALWAYS infertile and for a same-sex couple to have a child it ALWAYS requires a 3rd party to be involved. Thus, a child of a same-sex couple at best possesses the DNA of only one of the parents. Therefore, in a best-case scenario a same-sex family with children will always have one stepparent.
There are studies that show the best environment to raise children is a family with both biological parents involved in the rearing of the children.
blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/CDEV0009-3920~74~1~524%5C524.pdf
clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf
ryananddebi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Stacey-J2001.pdf
Even though in opposite-sex marriages there are a percentage of marriages where the children do have a stepparent, it is still a percentage where in same-sex couplings it is always the case.
The second article above points out that research shows that children raised in same-sex marriages are very similar statistically as those whose parents are divorced. It also pointed out that children of divorced parents do not have the same advantages of children in a normal marriage.
It has also been mentioned on this forum that this isn’t a valid argument because there are marriages allowed where one or both of the members is either unable or unwilling to have children. Three points here. 1.) For those parents that are unwilling, biologically they are still open to having a child either by accident or by latter changing their minds. 2.) For those that are unable to have children, I do not think anyone would like to have the government digging into the privacy of the individuals to determine fertility. I do believe that this would encroach upon a few privacy laws in this country. Therefore, the government has either intentionally or unintentionally used the one man and one woman requirement for marriage to minimize this possibility without dealing with the privacy issues. 3.) Concerning the heterosexual couples that are either unwilling or unable, they comprise a certain percentage of all heterosexual couples; while in same-sex relationships, it is always the case that they cannot on their own bear children.

So it turns out that the Prop 8 folks DO respect privacy and freedom from government intrusion into “lifestyles” which deeply offend their religious beliefs and “natural law.” If you’re hetero…

 

[kenofken]

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply. Forgive me, but I have a hunch that we may not make much progress on the issues we have so far addressed. No matter.
The Catholic Church that I love and cherish is home to a wide spectrum of people. Of all the major religions, Christianity is the one which has made the widest cross-cultural impact.
I state this as preamble to my question viz the highlighted sentence in your post.
Why do you feel that organized Faith could not joyfully plumb the depths of said reasons?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I say that because I know my gods in a way that is intensely personal. In my rituals and mediations, I have a direct line, so to speak, and I do not need or desire the mediation or translation of clergy, bishops, theologions, etc. I don’t need anyone elses book of revelation when I have access to them myself every minute of every day. I am part of an organized faith to the extent that I work cooperatively in a group with other like-minded people, but we’re not congregational. There is no laity, and we don’t try to define our own personal experience of deity as the only correct authoritative one.

 

[ERose]

It’s scary how well you know me! I do have a deep mistrust of any human or human institution which purports to know God’s will and attempts to act in a parental role to grown adults. For better and worse, that is my bias.

I have one question for you. Why are you here? I mean you have expressed your hatred for our Church and our beliefs and this is a “Catholic” forum, not a secular forum. Yet you are here. Why is that? I think that you should ask yourself that question. You really do not have to answer me, but I do believe you need to answer yourself.

I still stand by what I said about pre-emptive self defense. Time and again, the final argument I hear on this forum is that whatever the theological basis of fighting gay marriage, we simply have to prevent them from gaining rights because they are fixing to take ours away. I don’t see how that reasoning can be constructed as anything else but a type of pre-emptive war, whether fought violently or metaphorically.

It is a war. It has been a war. It is against absolute truth vs. relative truth. It is against the Church of God vs. Secular Liberalism. Why because secular liberalism and Catholicism are direct opposites of each other. As St. Augustine says it is the City of God vs. the City of the Devil. It has been this way from the beginning and will continue to be this way to the end of the world. Christ warned us about it and his apostles warn us about it. The world hates us because we are not of this world. We live in this world but we are not of this world. Have you ever asked yourself what atheist, which I am assuming you are, hates Christianity? You would figure that atheist would be apathic towards Christianity. You know those misinformed Christians who worship something that doesn’t exist. Yet atheists absolutely hate the Catholic church. Never met one who doesn’t. Why is that?

As to the abuse issue, I suppose time will tell how it plays out. I have no interest whatsoever in the church’s survival or diminishment. I live outside it for reasons much deeper than any one issue. However, I can say from 15 years in public policy journalism that some crisis response strategies work and others don’t Circling the wagons, denying the scope of the problem and blaming it on outsiders has never, ever worked. Not only have I not seen it work, I’ve never even heard third hand rumors of it working. But that will be learned the easy or the hard way by Rome, and I have no dog in that fight.

There is far more stories involved in this scandal that what you have shown and a lot more to it. Not all of the cases are the same and not all of the case was the bishop knowledgable of incident. So broadstroking it doesn’t help the situation. That is like saying the public school system is made up of child molestors and those who protect them so we should blacklist the whole school system in the US.

I confess I do have a level of emotional bias there too. I have a deep contempt and hatred for men who take advantage of society’s most vulnerable, whether it is done out of malice or cowardice.

I agree.

I would have more sympathy for the leadership’s plight if I had ever seen evidence of them doing the right thing when nobody was looking. Contrition and right action mean so much more when they’re done BEFORE a prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer has a rope around your neck.

There is evidence there you just don’t want to look for or acknowledge it. But see here is the problem. What do you expect them to do with the priest. Let us see in the cases where the civil investigation was stopped because of the lack of evidence or other reasons, should the priest still be fired? In the majority, not all for there was some coverup found which I personaly find repulsive as well, there was no civil case or an insufficient case against the accused priests. Should they have been fired anyway without sufficient evidence that a crime did occur? What if someone accused you of sexual abuse, which didn’t occur, and your company just fired you even though they had no evidence or proof it occurred. Do you think that would be fair? So why should it be any different for priests?

 

[kenofken]

I have one question for you. Why are you here? I mean you have expressed your hatred for our Church and our beliefs and this is a “Catholic” forum, not a secular forum. Yet you are here. Why is that? I think that you should ask yourself that question. You really do not have to answer me, but I do believe you need to answer yourself.

It is a war. It has been a war. It is against absolute truth vs. relative truth. It is against the Church of God vs. Secular Liberalism. Why because secular liberalism and Catholicism are direct opposites of each other. As St. Augustine says it is the City of God vs. the City of the Devil. It has been this way from the beginning and will continue to be this way to the end of the world. Christ warned us about it and his apostles warn us about it. The world hates us because we are not of this world. We live in this world but we are not of this world. Have you ever asked yourself what atheist, which I am assuming you are, hates Christianity? You would figure that atheist would be apathic towards Christianity. You know those misinformed Christians who worship something that doesn’t exist. Yet atheists absolutely hate the Catholic church. Never met one who doesn’t. Why is that?

There is far more stories involved in this scandal that what you have shown and a lot more to it. Not all of the cases are the same and not all of the case was the bishop knowledgable of incident. So broadstroking it doesn’t help the situation. That is like saying the public school system is made up of child molestors and those who protect them so we should blacklist the whole school system in the US.

I agree.

There is evidence there you just don’t want to look for or acknowledge it. But see here is the problem. What do you expect them to do with the priest. Let us see in the cases where the civil investigation was stopped because of the lack of evidence or other reasons, should the priest still be fired? In the majority, not all for there was some coverup found which I personaly find repulsive as well, there was no civil case or an insufficient case against the accused priests. Should they have been fired anyway without sufficient evidence that a crime did occur? What if someone accused you of sexual abuse, which didn’t occur, and your company just fired you even though they had no evidence or proof it occurred. Do you think that would be fair? So why should it be any different for priests?

I’m here because it’s one of many forums out there discussing important issues of the day and because I find I learn nothing by only talking with people who agree with me point for point on everything. I am not an atheist of any kind. I am a practicing pagan who is very religious in my own right. Nor do I think I’m “anti-Catholic” in any fair sense of the term. I certainly have my disagreements with the church and many of its beliefs. I only care about what Christianity believes insofar as I have to live with the results. If you all kept to yourselves like the Orthodox Jews or took over a state and small country and set up your own society with your own rules, I would have nothing to say about it. It would be none of my business, and if I came to visit, I would keep my mouth shut and live by the law of the land. As it stands, we all have to share this country, and since it’s a plural democracy, I shouldn’t have to live by your church’s law, any more than you should be made to live by Sharia or Mormon church law.

Positions on many of these cultural issues cannot be divided into “secular” views against “people of faith.” All of the positions I have put forward on this particular thread find broad agreement among Catholics in this country. A majority in some cases. That doesn’t make them right or wrong, but it demonstrates very clearly that my views are not just a war cry of fringe atheists out to get you.

The scandal issue probably belongs on another thread because it’s a very big can of worms. I don’t expect the church to have been perfect in dealing with this, but I do expect that they would have tried harder than average, given their advertisement as the only bearers of objective moral truth. At a bare minimum, I expect that they should exercise common sense prudence and err on the side of victims. Even if an allegation hasn’t been proven, any reasonable suspicion should lead to a reassignment to adult ministry, supervised situations etc. Most of the misery was caused by cases in which church authorities themselves believed abuse had taken place and steps were taken to cover it up and perpetuate it. This shouldn’t have to be an “us against them” issue. It honestly boggles my mind that the battle has been led by atheists and victims lawyers. You would think church conservatives who champion moral absolutism would be running over these folks on their way to the bishops mansions with battering rams…

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have one question for you. Why are you here?

I’ll answer that, because you won’t get a straight answer out of any of the deputies who have been sent to the various religious forums to conduct their indoctrination campaign. Notice that they don’t go to the popular media, who is pretty much on their side already.

The “why” is about the struggle for language. When you can seize language you can control both law (or regulation) and public perception. That’s why they’re here, all of them. The best way to deal with all of them is not to engage in conversation, because as you have seen, they are not serious about classic argumentation within the rules of logic and beginning with accepted premises. They’re inventing new biological and social premises, then arguing from circular positions. You won’t get them to agree on objective anything: I don’t mean 'objective truth" as understood in Catholic philosophy. I just mean objective biology and objective gender. Ain’t going to happen. They live in an enclosed world (a subset of the secular world) with uniquely fluid frameworks that evolve as expedient. Their objective is to wear down anyone with non-fluid frameworks. Therefore their foremost target are religions which hold to some permanence of ideas and terms.

Some of my favorite quotes from George Orwell apply here:

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

“Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”

"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

   --George Orwell quotes (English Novelist and Essayist, 1903-1950)

Note also that the family unit, in the novel 1984, is under attack, just as it is today. The principal method of attacking the tradiitonal family unit is to manipulate language; the secondary method is to make prominent artificial insemination (“artsem”) as the preferred method of reproduction, with technology overwhelming elemental biological relationships and the dynamism of nature.

Their game is very transparent to me, and to some others in both academia and public life who understand this.

 

[ERose]

1. The slippery slope argument has been repeatedly used, and repeatedly shot down.

Really? Granted I haven’t read every single thread on this subject but the 3 or 4 that I have read there hasn’t been any argument that shoots this down. So please educate me on how to shoot down this argument.

Human-animal relationships and adult-child will not (and cannot) be allowed because one of the parties is unable to consent to entering into a contract. .

In truth I agree with you on this one except that the opposition can effectively challenge this point by parental/owner consent: The animal belongs to me and as such I have custody of it and I say it can marry this person. The same way with a child. A parent can speak for his/her child and consent for them in terms of the marriage contract. Also there has been precedence set for teen-agers in some states by allowing teenage girls to either get contraception at school or abortions without having to inform there parents.

Furthermore, while I could foresee a polygamist push for marriage rights, this is no reason to deny same same-sex couples the right to marry. I must say though, that it is still quite a jump that assume that polygamy will have to be allowed *because of same-sex marriage. *

Really a stretch? Read the article that attached from Canada. Better yet google gay polygamy netherlands or canada or any place else that same sex marriage or unions have been legalized. Here is a article for you from the Netherlands: brusselsjournal.com/node/301

I am sorry, but the facts is that what was warned is happening in those places that have liberalized marriage.

I mean ask yourself this: If the “equal protection clause” is the primary argument for gay-marriage how can you not expect other marriage types to use this same clause just as effectively if there is precedence? That is just living with blinders my friend.

1. The “social definition of marriage”, as you call it, should more likely be called, “the Catholic definition of marriage”. It is easy for* Catholics *to conclude that, as you say, “the only reason marriage exists in the first place is for procreation,” because the Church informs them that this is so and thus they are in some way or another compelled to believe this. However, as far as secular society goes, I believe you would be hard pressed to find many Americans who would give you the same answer if you were to ask them, “What is the purpose of marriage?” Furthermore, marriage requirement laws, at least as far as I am aware, do not contain any requirement that the couple be capable of having children. The state does not seem to have any interest in marriage as existing for the purpose of procreation. This argument seems to be nothing more than certain Catholics trying to force their beliefs onto citizens of the secular state. Finally, while it can be said that homosexuals cannot currently procreate without a third party, it is the case that homosexuals can procreate and can adopt. Homosexuals can and do therefore raise children while some heterosexual couples choose not to have or raise children.

What is the purpose of marriage? Tell me since you know so much more than us Catholics. I mean I am looking at it from a historical and worldwide institution. Only very recently has primary purpose of procreation has been challenged. Ask yourself, why does marriage exist in the first place? For sex? No cause sex has been occurring outside of marriage throughout history. For love? No cause people marrying for love is a relatively new concept. Up until about 100 years ago the far majority of marriages where arranged between families. You have no argument here and you know so bring a better one not a useless one.

 

[ERose]

1. If you look, you can find plenty of scholarly research that demonstrates that homosexual couples are just as effective when it comes to raising children as heterosexual couples, so I will not spend any time addressing this point.

But you can also find just as much research saying that it does. So what do we do? I think it would be smarter to err to the side of caution instead of finding out in the next 20-30 years that the experiment failed. For that is what society is doing. They are experimenting with this children using the argument that we really do not know the impact. That is incompetence to the core.

1. Most of your second post seems to have little to offer this discussion. You discuss the “gay lifestyle”, abuse statistics, and the gay gene. None of these really have anything to do with marriage, but I will address them briefly. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic has yet to be determined, and really is not relevant. As for the gay lifestyle you speak of, there are gays who might live in the way you imagine the “gay lifestyle”, however, there are also those that do not. For that matter, there are heterosexual people who live a lifestyle similar to the “gay lifestyle”. While I doubt that the type of people you imagine would want to get married, not everyone (gay or straight) lives a certain lifestyle, and these are the people who DO want to get married. For instance, I am in a monogamous committed gay relationship and know several other couples who are as well. We do not have infidelity problems, we do not use drugs, we do not heavily drink, and we certainly do not abuse our partners. Besides the fact that many homosexuals do not live the way you might suggest they do, the fact remains that the problems you have noted are not exclusively homosexual problems.

Yes but studies show that they are more prevalent in the gay community. I didn’t write any of the articles I used. In fact the one from the Canadian gay group is very illuminating. Also from the data displayed your relationship is an exception not the rule in the gay community. Look I am not using “right-wing” sites as you guys call them. I am using your communities data whenever I can or from some other unbias source such as the CDC or ABA.

1. Homosexuality is not a choice, and to suggest that it is, or that someone is not born gay and at some point “becomes gay” is completely without a factual base. If you will ask any homosexual whether or not they chose to be gay, you would come away with a resounding, “No, I did not.” As for homosexual relationships being a lifestyle choice, well I suppose they are as much of a lifestyle choice as heterosexual relationships are a choice. After all, no one is forcing heterosexuals to get married, it is their choice to have sex, form relationships, etcetera. While for you, this argument may work, because it seems to be a short step away from suggesting that the choice of a gay man or woman to pursue a relationship is bad, or even sinful, this becomes your religious argument. The majority of people however do not believe in Catholicism, and should not be forced to adhere to Catholic dogma.

Evidently you didn’t read my argument. The gay-rights groups want to equate lifestyle with race and that is a fallacy and since you want to argue on matters that are touchy-feely that means that you don’t have an argument against.

 

[colmcille1]

I’ll answer that, because you won’t get a straight answer out of any of the deputies who have been sent to the various religious forums to conduct their indoctrination campaign. Notice that they don’t go to the popular media, who is pretty much on their side already.

The “why” is about the struggle for language. When you can seize language you can control both law (or regulation) and public perception. That’s why they’re here, all of them. The best way to deal with all of them is not to engage in conversation, because as you have seen, they are not serious about classic argumentation within the rules of logic and beginning with accepted premises. They’re inventing new biological and social premises, then arguing from circular positions. You won’t get them to agree on objective anything: I don’t mean 'objective truth" as understood in Catholic philosophy. I just mean objective biology and objective gender. Ain’t going to happen. They live in an enclosed world (a subset of the secular world) with uniquely fluid frameworks that evolve as expedient. Their objective is to wear down anyone with non-fluid frameworks. Therefore their foremost target are religions which hold to some permanence of ideas and terms.

Some of my favorite quotes from George Orwell apply here:

Note also that the family unit, in the novel 1984, is under attack, just as it is today. The principal method of attacking the tradiitonal family unit is to manipulate language; the secondary method is to make prominent artificial insemination (“artsem”) as the preferred method of reproduction, with technology overwhelming elemental biological relationships and the dynamism of nature.

Their game is very transparent to me, and to some others in both academia and public life who understand this.

Hi Elizabeth,
This is truly an excellent post! In fact, I would go so far as to say that this post should be a daily obligatory read by all Catholics before they engage in debate!
Your posts are one of the justifications which have presented themselves as to why I joined CAF! Thank you!
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[ERose]

I’m here because it’s one of many forums out there discussing important issues of the day and because I find I learn nothing by only talking with people who agree with me point for point on everything. I am not an atheist of any kind. I am a practicing pagan who is very religious in my own right.

Sorry about that. I was writing that message while you responded to another poster. By the way what kind of pagan? I mean that is a pretty broad stroke word. I also used to be a pagan at one time in my life, Scandinavian, actually. So we has something in common.

Nor do I think I’m “anti-Catholic” in any fair sense of the term. I certainly have my disagreements with the church and many of its beliefs. I only care about what Christianity believes insofar as I have to live with the results. If you all kept to yourselves like the Orthodox Jews or took over a state and small country and set up your own society with your own rules, I would have nothing to say about it. It would be none of my business, and if I came to visit, I would keep my mouth shut and live by the law of the land. As it stands, we all have to share this country, and since it’s a plural democracy, I shouldn’t have to live by your church’s law, any more than you should be made to live by Sharia or Mormon church law.

One thing that all non-Christians have to understand is that the country was built upon Christian ideals. This great country is great because of it being built upon these ideals. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are Christian documents. Yet there is no other country that is more tolerant than ours. Why is that? Because the ideal Christian view is tolerant to others. In fact I would say comfortably that Christians are the most tolerant group of people out there. I know that there are exceptions out there but when you look at tolerance Christians stand at the front.

Positions on many of these cultural issues cannot be divided into “secular” views against “people of faith.” All of the positions I have put forward on this particular thread find broad agreement among Catholics in this country. A majority in some cases. That doesn’t make them right or wrong, but it demonstrates very clearly that my views are not just a war cry of fringe atheists out to get you.

I disagree to you on this one. There is a culture war out there. The far majority of citizens in this country are Christians. Granted not all of them are practising and they all are not Orthodox and there are some that are liberal. But we are seeing the minority through the illusion of protecting minority rights trampling over the majorities rights in this country. Equal rights? Your side doesn’t believe in that. Do you need proof? The next time you read an article in online about the Catholic church in the mainline news sources check out the comments. You talk about hateful. You will not find more hateful speech than what is posted there. Secular liberalist hates us more than anything in the world. They prefer Muslims over us and talk about gay and women rights in Islamic Countries? And yet they will take the side of Islam over the Christian side any day of the week.

The scandal issue probably belongs on another thread because it’s a very big can of worms. I don’t expect the church to have been perfect in dealing with this, but I do expect that they would have tried harder than average, given their advertisement as the only bearers of objective moral truth. At a bare minimum, I expect that they should exercise common sense prudence and err on the side of victims. Even if an allegation hasn’t been proven, any reasonable suspicion should lead to a reassignment to adult ministry, supervised situations etc. Most of the misery was caused by cases in which church authorities themselves believed abuse had taken place and steps were taken to cover it up and perpetuate it. This shouldn’t have to be an “us against them” issue. It honestly boggles my mind that the battle has been led by atheists and victims lawyers. You would think church conservatives who champion moral absolutism would be running over these folks on their way to the bishops mansions with battering rams…

You are right this is for another thread.