Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I agree with your statement
But I don’t consider Bishop Sheen’s Plea For Intolerance to be extreme.
- Status
But I don’t consider Bishop Sheen’s Plea For Intolerance to be extreme.
D
davidv
Guest
Which means “most people” do not understand what marriage is.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Therefore…? What exactly?
Marriage should be abolished?
You may as well contend…
I am using the modern definition of “morality” because that is what people are using when they are behaving “morally”. Society has a warped and debauched concept of morality hence the “scare quotes”. It used to be that only fools and young people that had such an absurd view of morality, that kind that was mocked by nihilists, barbarians and tyrants yet now is pervasive and is the societal norm.
Therefore…
…morality should be dismantled?
Or…
I am using the modern definition of “Christianity” because that is what people are using when they speak of “Christianity.” Society has a warped and debauched concept of being “Christian,” hence the “scare quotes”. It used to be that only fools and young people had such an absurd view of Christianity, the kind that was mocked by atheists and Marxists yet now it is pervasive and is the societal norm.
Therefore…
… Christianity should be abolished?
E
edwest2
Guest
I have read more than a few posts that take a “chess player” approach. Move and countermove plus a feint or dodge. At that point, we have classic psychological warfare strategy which has many components and approaches but I’ll break it down. The “target,” if you will, is given a proposition. The psy-ops approach is to analyze the responses and the game begins. It is a two-pronged approach. Fact mixed with false information which is presented as a desirable goal, and then emotional appeals to cloud the issue or to attempt to create an emotional state in the target. Undesired responses from the target can result in dodging, obfuscation and in some cases, name calling. The other option is to disengage, and try again later.
Ed
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
I have never argued for the dismantling of marriage, I have noted the logical consequences of the shell it has become and am arguing in favor of restoring the institution of marriage to how it used to be so as to completely and utterly quash any logical arguments in favor of gay marriage.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You will get no disagreement on the above from me, although “how it used to be” with reference to marriage is a tad undefined to warrant anything like agreement.
I am a little wary about agreeing to something when I am not clear what it is that I am agreeing to.
Achilles Heel and all that.
B
bisco1
Guest
the institution hasn’t changed, and thus, we cannot ‘go back to the way it used to be’. people and societies change, God is constant. another generation in the future will be filled with the spirit, and will be different than this one. if not here, than in countries that are less materialistic and more easily indwelled. i’m generalizing, of course.
E
edwest2
Guest
Marriage and especially preparing for marriage, involved a well-defined process. This process is now forgotten, distorted or abandoned. However, it is sound and must be taught.
- Attraction.
- Dating, which may or may not lead to more dates. But after attraction, how the person behaves decides for both parties if there is a desire to spend more time together. A moral compass is required.
- Courtship. This occurs after a series of dates where both parties get to know each other, and realize that their desire to be together is not based on just looks but on a sincerely felt compatibility and - get this - simply enjoying each other’s company.
- Engagement. This happens if both want children and a commitment to each other. It involves practical matters. Both should meet each other’s parents. Traditionally, the man would sit down with her father and announce his intentions. The father, having been his age once, ‘gets it.’ He will ask the practical questions, assess this man’s character and be on guard for his daughter. Sexual intercourse only occurs after the ceremony.
content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2132761,00.html
“Abortion rates decrease as more women say killing a child in the womb is wrong.”
The above would just “Ruin” everything. “More college age couples reject cohabitation in favor of marriage.”
Oh, the beauty. The beauty.
Ed
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Like waking up from a bad dream.
We have to keep reminding ourselves of just how awful it is.
B
bisco1
Guest
funny, some of the best non practicing catholic parents i know, who came from good catholic families, wouldn’t dream of ‘imposing’ their ideals on anyone else. what they completely ignore in the inner city, and now, society in general, they would never do themselves or want for their children. i won’t be around, but it will be interesting to see how their grandchildren are raised.
E
epan
Guest
It’s known as: the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Have you heard of it?
The US Constitution and its amendments are an important document defining the extent of government power, and the rights of individuals under the law.
Thomas Jefferson described the this clause as the “wall of separation between church and state.”
E
edwest2
Guest
Yes. Yes. Today’s “lifestyle choices” have been gradually reinforced in people’s minds for decades. Right is wrong. Good is bad. These choices have definite consequences. But people were and are living under a barrage of media messages that “engineered consent.” Once the traditional family fell to a certain level, why not gay marriage or other forms of “marriage”? And again, “engineering consent” is ongoing.
As Catholic Radio host Al Kresta put it: “Catholics need to get out of their amnesia.” And he makes reference to the last 40 years. We need to wake up and realize that, too often, we were lied to. That good role models gave way to really bad and dysfunctional role models. And deviant sexual practices? “What’s the big deal?”
Knowing the truth and living it makes life worth living. Indifference to actual truth leads to moral relativism.
Ed
E
epan
Guest
The Catholic Church is very slow to changed. It learned some lessons about what its opinions and teachings should be in the areas of science, when it had to come to terms with the idea of a heliocentric system of planets. So, today, it is very careful about pronouncements on science. But this took centuries of erroneous teaching to learn.
One of the issues which confronts the Catholic Church today, is the disparity between the findings of behavioral science and traditional church opinions and teachings.
There also appears to deal of confusion among Catholics as to what “Natural Law” is. It is a philosophical construct which dates at least to Plato, and which Christians later adapted to their own beliefs, and then attributed that adaptation to the word of God. The important thing to remember about “Natural Law”, is that it is neither “natural”, in the sense that it is man-made, nor is it “law”, other than that it has been made up by a people, and declared to be a law by those who agree with it. In this sense, the claim to absolute moral authority is poppycock. “Natural Law” is at heart a form of moral relativism.
Don’t expect the Church to change its opinions on this topic any time soon. Contrary to the claims you may read here, the Church has changed its moral teachings over the centuries. But these changes come slowly.
R
Rau
Guest
It all sounds too sensible, too realistic, too understandable. And children have been properly represented in the process. While the biological underpinnings of “attraction” are connected with procreation, our marriage-directed behaviour is not solely about a plan to have children. In fact the Church does not require that children are a goal, only that you do not, by intent or deed, exclude them as a product of your marriage.
C
clem456
Guest
It’s a rather simple proposition that apparently is hard to accept in our society.
Human beings exist (we have the being in “human being”).
How do we come to exist? Through the union of a man and woman. No other union can give a human being existence.
Is it good for human beings to exist? I happen to think so. How about you?
If something is good, is it worth protecting?
For instance, if it is good for a human being to exist, and I see you drowning, should I act to protect you? Should I help feed you to keep you alive?
What if I say “no, it is good for me to look the other way”. Am I deceiving you? Yes I am. It is not good that you should suffer or die needlessly if I can help you, so I should protect you. Our society proclaims in many ways that it is good to keep human beings alive, to protect our very existence. (We are also negligent, so there is deception going on.)
If:
it is good for human beings to exist,
and
marriage is the singular way that existence happens,
and
it is good to protect that existence…
why would I accept a deception like “gay marriage”, which cannot, by definition, be the same thing as “marriage”?
The problem with gay marriage isn’t (just) that couples practice disordered sexual acts in the privacy of their own homes. If that was it, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. The problem is that the concept is a deception, and that deception detracts from a fundamental good… human existence. That’s a bad thing for society.
F
Finite
Guest
I keep reading how gay couples entering into a civil marriage is “destroying society from within” and how it is somehow harming “traditional marriage”. Here’s the thing…it’s not.
Let’s take two scenarios. Both are occurring at the same time. However, one is occurring in a United States where civil marriage for homosexuals is banned. The other is occurring in a United States where it is legal.
US - Banned:
Jack and Lisa fall in love. Jack proposes to Lisa, and she accepts. The couple marries six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country and go on to have four children, two boys and two girls.
Bill and Tom fall in love. They cannot legally marry each other. They just decide to live together.
U.S. - Legal:
Jack and Lisa fall in love. Jack proposes to Lisa, and she accepts. The couple marries six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country and go on to have four children, two boys and two girls.
Bill and Tom for love. Tom proposals to Bill. They get married six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country. They go on to have children of their own.
Notice anything? Jack and Lisa’s story didn’t change. I keep hearing how allowing gay people to marry each other is going to somehow have an effect on “Jack and Lisa”, but no one has provided a single bit of evidence that it ever has or ever will. “Traditional” marriage isn’t changing. It’s not as if it is no longer going to be available. Jack and Lisa can still get married.
As for “destroying society”…laughable. I believe someone in another post said it best when they compared this argument to beating a dead horse. The reason society’s opinion has been shifting is because every day people are beginning to see that those ominous, scary tales of a society crumbling as a repercussion of allowing gays to marry never came to fruition. It’s been legal at least in one state for 10 years now. It’s been legal elsewhere for even longer. There have been no serious repercussions anywhere. The sky hasn’t fallen.
Now, we can go on and on until the sun don’t shine about “morality”, but morality is subjective. Sure, there are some moral views that we all agree on…rape is wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong…but one doesn’t need to be Catholic, or even Christian for that matter, to see why the vast majority of society holds this view. These kinds of things have victims. Someone is harmed in some way.
But allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage? No one can prove harm because there is no harm. Again, we have over a decade to reference and nothing has happened. Sure, you could say that it hasn’t been around long enough for us to really know, but consider what other evidence we have: homosexual relationships. Those aren’t new. Those have been around for as long as heterosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships haven’t proven to harm society, and I think it’s silly to imply that giving a homosexual couple a piece of paper that states that their relationship is legally recognized by the government is going to do/has done any damage…because homosexual relationships haven’t done any damage to society. At all.
I also think it’s important to remember that there is a difference between a civil marriage and, say, a Catholic marriage. If there is one thing we can all agree on, I think it is that the Catholic Church is NEVER going to allow same sex couples to get married in the church. The Catholic church will continue to not consider these unions a marriage, and I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of homosexual couples who seek a civil marriage or have already entered into one care what ANY church thinks, let alone the Catholic Church. They don’t need a church’s blessing for their marriage to be legally recognized.
Now, as I’ve been an avid “spectator” of sorts for a long while on this forum, I already sense some of the replies I might get. “Well, it’s only a matter of time before they sue churches! Just like they sued the baker, the florist, and the photographer!”.
I’ve read every single post on this thread, and many, MANY others involving this topic. I have yet to see any rational, solid evidence that would justify banning two people of the same gender from entering into a civil marriage. Religious arguments are useless, morality arguments usually stem from religion anyway, and what little secular “evidence” i’ve seen provided here falls short, as it never actually proves anything.
No one here is going to change their mind. If you are against same-sex marriage, you likely will always be that way. Likewise, I am unlikely to ever suddenly decide I’m against it. The only point I’m trying to make here is that the reason that these marriages are becoming legal at such an astonishing rate is glaringly obvious - no harm has been proven.
Let’s take two scenarios. Both are occurring at the same time. However, one is occurring in a United States where civil marriage for homosexuals is banned. The other is occurring in a United States where it is legal.
US - Banned:
Jack and Lisa fall in love. Jack proposes to Lisa, and she accepts. The couple marries six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country and go on to have four children, two boys and two girls.
Bill and Tom fall in love. They cannot legally marry each other. They just decide to live together.
U.S. - Legal:
Jack and Lisa fall in love. Jack proposes to Lisa, and she accepts. The couple marries six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country and go on to have four children, two boys and two girls.
Bill and Tom for love. Tom proposals to Bill. They get married six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country. They go on to have children of their own.
Notice anything? Jack and Lisa’s story didn’t change. I keep hearing how allowing gay people to marry each other is going to somehow have an effect on “Jack and Lisa”, but no one has provided a single bit of evidence that it ever has or ever will. “Traditional” marriage isn’t changing. It’s not as if it is no longer going to be available. Jack and Lisa can still get married.
As for “destroying society”…laughable. I believe someone in another post said it best when they compared this argument to beating a dead horse. The reason society’s opinion has been shifting is because every day people are beginning to see that those ominous, scary tales of a society crumbling as a repercussion of allowing gays to marry never came to fruition. It’s been legal at least in one state for 10 years now. It’s been legal elsewhere for even longer. There have been no serious repercussions anywhere. The sky hasn’t fallen.
Now, we can go on and on until the sun don’t shine about “morality”, but morality is subjective. Sure, there are some moral views that we all agree on…rape is wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong…but one doesn’t need to be Catholic, or even Christian for that matter, to see why the vast majority of society holds this view. These kinds of things have victims. Someone is harmed in some way.
But allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage? No one can prove harm because there is no harm. Again, we have over a decade to reference and nothing has happened. Sure, you could say that it hasn’t been around long enough for us to really know, but consider what other evidence we have: homosexual relationships. Those aren’t new. Those have been around for as long as heterosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships haven’t proven to harm society, and I think it’s silly to imply that giving a homosexual couple a piece of paper that states that their relationship is legally recognized by the government is going to do/has done any damage…because homosexual relationships haven’t done any damage to society. At all.
I also think it’s important to remember that there is a difference between a civil marriage and, say, a Catholic marriage. If there is one thing we can all agree on, I think it is that the Catholic Church is NEVER going to allow same sex couples to get married in the church. The Catholic church will continue to not consider these unions a marriage, and I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of homosexual couples who seek a civil marriage or have already entered into one care what ANY church thinks, let alone the Catholic Church. They don’t need a church’s blessing for their marriage to be legally recognized.
Now, as I’ve been an avid “spectator” of sorts for a long while on this forum, I already sense some of the replies I might get. “Well, it’s only a matter of time before they sue churches! Just like they sued the baker, the florist, and the photographer!”.
- Let’s entertain the idea that there is a couple who would actually try and sue the church, or any church for that matter. First of all, they have a snowballs chance in hell of winning a lawsuit that demanded a church marry them. Also, the “couple” in question is not the rule, it is the exception. Most gay couples aren’t interested in suing a church because 1) if they really want a church wedding, there are churches already out there willing to marry them and 2) they just…don’t…care.
- As for the lawsuits that many love to point at and scream “Religious Freedom!”, I agree with you. As do most people that are homosexual. Again, these stories are not the rule, they are the exception. There’s a reason they made the news, after all.
I’ve read every single post on this thread, and many, MANY others involving this topic. I have yet to see any rational, solid evidence that would justify banning two people of the same gender from entering into a civil marriage. Religious arguments are useless, morality arguments usually stem from religion anyway, and what little secular “evidence” i’ve seen provided here falls short, as it never actually proves anything.
No one here is going to change their mind. If you are against same-sex marriage, you likely will always be that way. Likewise, I am unlikely to ever suddenly decide I’m against it. The only point I’m trying to make here is that the reason that these marriages are becoming legal at such an astonishing rate is glaringly obvious - no harm has been proven.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This is simply a confused notion of the natural law.
The natural law is not hinged on nature, per se, but on the understanding of human nature and what it takes to attain the final good for mankind. Because human nature has not changed and neither has the final good for humankind, therefore the natural law has not and cannot change.
What you are confusing are the essential principles of the moral law with the practical means for bringing about the final good. Final ends determine the good and the moral principles upon which good moral behaviour is premised. Those ends have not changed. However, since the circumstances that humans find ourselves in have changed the pragmatic “rules” derived from those moral principles are subject to change.
Go ahead and list some of the ways that you believe the Church has changed its moral teaching, and I am certain those changes will boil down to “rule” or pragmatic changes and not to the ultimate principles undergirding them.
This is true even within the laws that govern society. The practical laws - speed limits, traffic laws, building codes, etc., have changed, but the underlying moral principles such as acting for the well-being of the common good have not.
Well, I lie, modern western societies have replaced the common good with individual moral license, which is why modern cultures are crumbling before our eyes and governments have sanctioned the killing off of future citizenry to pander to the wants, rights and ostensible needs of the wealthy and influential oligarchy of the living in the name of liberty rather than the well-being of human society as a whole.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I was planning on reading your entire post, but at this point it seemed to become entirely incoherent.
I couldn’t see past this last sentence.
O
Ositokc
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
Very well said. Eloquent, concise and completely logical!
Bravo!
:clapping:
Very well said. Eloquent, concise and completely logical!
Bravo!
- Status