I understand your argument now Rossum, from a Catholic perspective of marriage it’s like what JimG said, marriage has been so devalued for people to just fall over the bar, that the idea of homosexual marriage seems like not that much of a leap for alot of people.
Thank you _Abyssinia, I liked this quote the best, because it’s true and that’s what is so hurtful and selfish about all of this argument to legalise same sex marriage.
Those who support same sex marriage, please wake up to what you are supporting.
You are right. The value is not always in the person you are discussing these matters with. It’s good to see so many great answers to so many difficult and oftentimes confusing questions.sees the arguments of rossum get picked apart while I was asleep
I do like this debate, because even though it may not directly convince rossum, it could help someone else who is reading it. Also, I love going over strawmen and smokescreens.
Personally, I find it offensive. Where is all of this rancor about children being denied a mother or a father in heterosexual households? Where are the calls to bring about an end to heterosexual divorce or single-parent households? So far, all that has been presented before the Supreme Court is a rank double-standard and a truckload of hyperbole. Its fine if some people have moral objections but don’t tell me that a homosexual couple should be denied a legally recognized lifetime commitment so Britney Spears can have another drunk 55 hour drive-through marriage in Las Vegas to prevent marriage from ‘unraveling.’ That lawyer is a constructing a rather large glass house.
I reject your use of the word “designed”. The organs belong to their owner and can be used as the owner wishes. A hammer is designed to hammer nails. There is nothing to prevent me using my hammer to prop a door open – something it is not designed for.
I do not accept that homosexuality is either immoral or disordered. It is a naturally occurring minority sexual orientation.
It is certainly natural, because we observe it in animals. How do you define “normal”? Is being left handed “normal”? It is certainly a minority of people, but it is a naturally occurring minority. I see homosexuality in much the same way.
The word “rose” covers many different plants in many different colours. Perhaps a skilled plant breeder could breed a non-rose that smelled like one type of rose. There is nothing inherently impossible about doing that. Using GM methods it could certainly be done.
Do Christians obey the law to recognise remarried divorcees as married? In civil law they are married but in Catholic law they are not. What practical effect does this have on the way the Church operates?
No. As I pointed out, the word “marriage” already includes more than one form of union. Or are you telling me that David was not married to Bathsheba? She was his eighth wife, after all, and so I suspect does not fall within your definition of marriage.
Have you any examples of major civil disobedience from those countries or states that have already implemented same sex marriage? There may be individuals who have caused problems, but I am not aware of anything that the local police could not deal with. Westboro’ Baptist seem to be very careful to stay within the law.
Not in all cases. Remember that freedom of religion is not absolute. The law removes the “freedom” of Aztec priests to offer human sacrifice. Your freedom of religion has to be balanced against the MCC’s equal freedom of religion.
I am not clear as to what this question is aiming at.
In part I suspect. In the UK the usual compromise is that Catholic schools teach the state mandated curriculum in normal lessons and Catholic doctrine in religion lessons.
You should have started using a different word when divorce became legal. Catholic marriage and civil marriage have been different for some years now, long before same sex marriage started. What is changing is civil marriage, not Catholic marriage. They are not the same thing. Again we are back to our difference over whether marriage is one thing or many things. Alternatively, you may want to think of “marriage” as an abbreviation for “civil marriage” or “Catholic marriage” depending on context.
Thank you for some interesting questions.
Yes, I’ve heard this argument in many forms. What it comes down to is this: Heterosexuals have already messed up marriage so badly, with contraception, with divorce, with adultery, with fornication, with cohabitation, with serial marriage, with separating the unitive from the procreative, and sometimes just doing the procreative part in a test tube–all that’s been done by heterosexuals. And I quite agree.
I think that interpretation misses the point entirely. Enshrining the idea that actually ending a marriage is less of a threat to the institution than the lifelong commitments of homosexuals just doesn’t make any logical sense. The secular institution as it exists today is neither designed or applied to accomplish any of the things Cooper alleged. The argument is that these standards are not required of or even applied to heterosexuals and therefore it would be unconstitutional to do so in the case of homosexuals.
I doubt anyone would believe their marriage to be meaningless just because Joe and John are married. Besides, secular marriage is already meaningless to the Church; always has been. What people are arguing about here is a word; a title with no substance. There is no substantive difference, in secular terms, between a marriage, a civil union, or an untitled life-long commitment.
And yet homosexuals insist on the word ‘marriage,’ a word which has for 10,000 years meant sexual complementarity.
A word that has meant many different things over that time period and, yes, sometimes including same-sex relationships. Secular rights and benefits in addition to retention of those rights and benefits across State lines are tied to that word; which is why it is considered important.
PS–I might add that the Catholic Church treats every marriage as valid unless proven otherwise–even civil marriage. (It doesn’t treat same sex marriage as valid because it is impossible; the couple is incapable of marital relations.)
There have been societies which recognized same sex relationships, but not as marriages. Some societies allowed a man to have both his boy and a wife, but he was only married to the wife. The same sex relationship was not marriage.
All non-sacramental marriages are invalid without express permission from the local Bishop.
Same-sex marriage was permitted, and practiced, in the Roman Empire until 342 C.E.
Let’s say a couple comes to the parish to be married. The man is non-Catholic and was married previously in a non-sacramental marriage. That marriage will have to be submitted to the marriage tribunal for a decision as to validity before this couple can be married. Why? Because the Church considers the prior marriage valid until proven otherwise.
I don’t have any information at hand. I know that a few of the emperors used to cross dress and do pretend marriage ceremonies, but no one took it seriously. Do you mean the average Roman citizen could, under Roman law, take a same sex partner and have that recognized as marriage?
The tribunal is just a formality. It is invalid without express permission of the Bishop. They may approach the investigation with the assumption that you had it and investigate that assumption but it doesn’t change the fact that the stand-alone civil marriage is invalid.
Yes, until 342 C.E when the Theodosian Code was modified to specifically outlaw same-sex marriage and order married same-sex couples to be rounded up and publicly executed.
It is currently 39 degrees outside; its contribution to the fall of Rome is equal.
Rome fell for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with family structure. Its not as if marriage would have cured the plague, held the barbarian hordes at bay, made its generals better tacticians, or resolved profound political ideological divisions. Rome fell because its leaders were so politically divided that they could not effectively lead and because its forces were so scattered and its people so ravaged by the plague that they could not adequately defend themselves against the barbarian invasion.
Before making any sweeping generalizations, I would recommend a study of the Zimmerman book, which is quite extensive in its study of family structure and civilization. Family is the substructure of any society, and its health affects all aspects of the culture.