C
cena
Guest
The death rate is above the fertility rate and that is already causing problems
- Status
C
cena
Guest
From the council ofTrent
thecounciloftrent.com/ch24.htm
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Read the following translation:
Can. 10 If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy, let him be anathema.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM
It doesn’t mean it is better to remain in virginity, it means it that it is no better or more blessed to be married than to remain celibate.
That does not entail it IS better to remain celibate than to be married. It is not making one state higher than the other, merely denying that either one is higher than the other.
B
BrassAnkles
Guest
Unfortunately people have used this to attack marriage (not saying you). This is wrong of course.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
By the way, links from the site above are to what appear to be sedevacantist web sites. They speak of restoring Pope Gregory XVII to the papacy and claim a number of the last popes are heretics.
I suggest you be careful about where you find translations of documents. Vatican.va and the catechism would be prime sources.
I made a similar error recently citing what appeared to be a site giving accurate information on Church Councils until I scrolled to the bottom and found some rather disturbing claims about the current pope.
C
cena
Guest
Marriage isn’t bad. Marriage is good, but to not marry is better.
C
cena
Guest
Are there any resources that are reliable about the Council of Trent?
C
cena
Guest
Well if an adult brother and sister wanted to get married and they are ‘in love’ what is stopping them? What if they have ‘love and joy’ in their relationship?Should they raise children together?
If love is love then why is that wrong? If love can exist between two people of the same sex and we should just accept, should we accept things like incest?
Since homosexuality does not invalidate love does that mean incest does not either?
B
bisco1
Guest
o/p, are you clear now, on why gay marriage is wrong?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
We ARE discriminating against those behaviors and preferences.
What people fail to realize on this issue:
- Discrimination is not always a bad thing. We discriminate every time we pick one brand over another at the grocery store, and “laws by their very nature discriminate,” as Jason Lewis notes.
- The gay “marriage” argument is about behavior, not people. Two straight people could not get a gay “marriage” in a place where it is illegal just because they are straight and straight people are more special.
- Historically, the reason why states are even involved in marriage is for the healthy rearing of children and the continuation of their civilization, not to make some people feel good and others bad. The gay "marriage’ movement always has to try and turn this into an emotional argument. That is the calling card of Western progressives in general because most of they stand does not have merit.
- It’s a safe bet the “two consenting adults” crowd will be a no-show or just laugh and say “its the culture”.
- These kinds of things have been cornerstones of now dead, conquer or transformed societies. Just look at the pantheons of pagan gods. Riddled with incest, beastiality, sexual scandal, adultery. Compare that to the obsession that Western millenials have about homosexuality. :tsktsk:
- There’s already places that allow so-called gay “marriage” that have some recognition of polygamy, and there’s been discussion about pedophilia becoming a new sexual orientation. Also, the Huffington Post recently had an article that was basically endorsing adultery. And zoophiles and objectophiles acting out on their have been around long before so-called gay “marriage” hit the ground in the USA.
C
cena
Guest
Yeah, adultery and pedophile are inevitable. I still have hope people think incest and beastiality are wrong no matter how much in love the person believes they are.We ARE discriminating against those behaviors and preferences.
What people fail to realize on this issue:
- Discrimination is not always a bad thing. We discriminate every time we pick one brand over another at the grocery store, and “laws by their very nature discriminate,” as Jason Lewis notes.
- The gay “marriage” argument is about behavior, not people. Two straight people could not get a gay “marriage” in a place where it is illegal just because they are straight and straight people are more special.
- Historically, the reason why states are even involved in marriage is for the healthy rearing of children and the continuation of their civilization, not to make some people feel good and others bad. The gay "marriage’ movement always has to try and turn this into an emotional argument. That is the calling card of Western progressives in general because most of they stand does not have merit.
- It’s a safe bet the “two consenting adults” crowd will be a no-show or just laugh and say “its the culture”.
- These kinds of things have been cornerstones of now dead, conquer or transformed societies. Just look at the pantheons of pagan gods. Riddled with incest, beastiality, sexual scandal, adultery. Compare that to the obsession that Western millenials have about homosexuality. :tsktsk:
- There’s already places that allow so-called gay “marriage” that have some recognition of polygamy, and there’s been discussion about pedophilia becoming a new sexual orientation. Also, the Huffington Post recently had an article that was basically endorsing adultery. And zoophiles and objectophiles acting out on their have been around long before so-called gay “marriage” hit the ground in the USA.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I wonder, because a lot of people who ask those kinds of questions really aren’t interested in our answers.
They actually get brownie points from the gay “marriage” movement just by asking the question over and over, and it’s kind of a bonus (unfortunately) if they say “Well, I’m Catholic, and I USED to be for traditional marriage…but now I’m for so-called gay “marriage”…aren’t I a cool lil’ rebel? And I’m not backwards like those other Catholics!”
I don’t want to second-guess the original poster, but this is what we end up dealing with.
B
bisco1
Guest
agreed, but i know i’d get docked some house points if i called them out on it.
E
edwest2
Guest
Radical individualism involves believing that nothing can be known for certain. What is marriage? Depending on the date on the calendar, and 40 years of propaganda, primarily through through the media, to distort the true meaning of the foundations of marriage: attraction, friendship, commitment and the reality you saw around you, for the most part; over 40 years ago, you were taught and shown what day to day marriage is: good days, work, hard days, arguments, forgiveness… love, sacrificial love.
Today, ‘hook up culture’ is a poison that has infected too many. Even love has lost its meaning for some. Pleasure and benefits - good. Hard days and doing without for a time - bad. And relationships? Too complicated. So, let’s just create our own version of what marriage means. It’s the 21st Century! Yeah. So?
Read Humani Generis. Novelty and creating a “new” way of looking at things was a good part of what we were warned against. Forcing the people to accept something by legal fiat is wrong. Yelling discrimination translates as: “This is what we want. Make it legal.” As you wrote, only in contrast to egregious harm can anyone see past an invention. To get a glimpse of part of what morality is. When people make up right and wrong for themselves is one thing, but forcing it on others by law is another. And no, I’m not referring to “if you don’t want to marry a gay person, just don’t” but to the foundational elements of morality and reality.
Ed
B
bisco1
Guest
i’m always confluxed between what the church teaches, and what the government legalizes. i go by church teaching, but Jesus never told rome to change the laws, He told the people to change their ways. he that has ears, let him hear! i can’t get too worked up with what the politicians are up to, i’ve got enough on my plate, just trying to live our Lord’s commands.
E
edwest2
Guest
What the Church teaches matters:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Peace,
Ed
B
bisco1
Guest
that’s why i go by church teaching, but it doesn’t matter to government.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Why not???
If not for the purpose of procreation…why marry at all?
Maybe the time has come for the “Big Backlash”.
Not long ago a couple living together had to bear the stigma “Shacking Up”. They lost the respect of friends and family members shunned them. Did shaking up exist then? Yes, but not nearly at the rate it occurs today. Today it is acceptable by society and some religious denominations. SO…why marry?
Maybe parents and families should begin taking a dim view of shacking up and develop a “non-acceptance” attitude.
“Acceptance” has caused us a lot of trouble. Along with the concepts of: sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and (of course) tolerance, all as defined by “gay sophists”. We as Catholics and as a society failed to examine the underlying premises of their arguments. Now homosexuals are able to cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors.
The bottom line is that now homosexuality is promoted in schools, films and the media and our traditional concept of marriage has been destroyed. :sad_yes:
B
bisco1
Guest
the horse is out of the barn.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
People these days marry for love which is an absurd and terrible idea, it is like building on quicksand.
- Status