J
Jaroslaw
Guest
sorry, that was We’wha, not Mi Wha.
(From “A history of Same Sex Marriage” by William N. Eskridge Jr., Yale Law School)
(From “A history of Same Sex Marriage” by William N. Eskridge Jr., Yale Law School)
Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights
- Status
M
mtbender
Guest
As long as we ignore the secular intent of marriage… which you have avoided addressing.
M
mo3
Guest
So because 0.0000001% of the humans in the past allowed same sex marriage, it should be allowed in the USA today?
God bless.
J
Jaroslaw
Guest
Mo3 - I have ignored you up to now because your thought processes, at least in your responses to me, are really weak and sad.
Previously, you said I was dismissing the opposition. No, I disagree with them, and cite logical reasons. They are free to have a different view, but as so many have said here, give supporting evidence/reasons. Did you ask if I was a “religious bigot”? I don’t even know what that is, unless you mean “automatically against religion.” Well, I’m hardly that. As has been amply pointed out, this topic is about what rights people should have and how they are arrived at. If the question was simply what would a Catholic theocracy do, we don’t need to discuss it at all.
You exaggerate to the point of stupidity when you say “.0000001” percent of societies allowed same sex marriage. I don’t think we can know, since so much of history is lost, but certainly no one here has done the research to come up with a number on the info we DO have. But even taking your claim at face value for argument’s sake - at one point in history, America was the first country to allow democracy and moved away from the divine right of Kings/Queens, dictators etc… So because it was a minority of one government it was a wrong idea? And you miss the point. I was responding to Charlemagne who seemed to think same sex marriage has never happened (read the book and many others).
Previously, you said I was dismissing the opposition. No, I disagree with them, and cite logical reasons. They are free to have a different view, but as so many have said here, give supporting evidence/reasons. Did you ask if I was a “religious bigot”? I don’t even know what that is, unless you mean “automatically against religion.” Well, I’m hardly that. As has been amply pointed out, this topic is about what rights people should have and how they are arrived at. If the question was simply what would a Catholic theocracy do, we don’t need to discuss it at all.
You exaggerate to the point of stupidity when you say “.0000001” percent of societies allowed same sex marriage. I don’t think we can know, since so much of history is lost, but certainly no one here has done the research to come up with a number on the info we DO have. But even taking your claim at face value for argument’s sake - at one point in history, America was the first country to allow democracy and moved away from the divine right of Kings/Queens, dictators etc… So because it was a minority of one government it was a wrong idea? And you miss the point. I was responding to Charlemagne who seemed to think same sex marriage has never happened (read the book and many others).
M
Mudgely
Guest
wrong again john, as usual. but then we already know that about you.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
John 21
**
Hey Mudgely, I see you are hurling around the insults again!**
No end of that lately. Apparently it’s acceptable for atheists to enter this forum and defame Catholics with terms like “bigot.” That is always the last resort of people who have no other argument.
Here’s a question I’d like the defenders of legalizing sodomite marriage to answer:
Would you also defend the legal right of fathers to marry their sons?
**
Hey Mudgely, I see you are hurling around the insults again!**
No end of that lately. Apparently it’s acceptable for atheists to enter this forum and defame Catholics with terms like “bigot.” That is always the last resort of people who have no other argument.
Here’s a question I’d like the defenders of legalizing sodomite marriage to answer:
Would you also defend the legal right of fathers to marry their sons?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
If you want to be taken seriously and not be confused with the same people that ridicule bully and beat up people with same sex attractions please refrain from using the word “sodomite”. Its not necessary, and whether you are or not, it makes you look like a bigot. I don’t understand why you feel the need to use such words just because you don’t support something. Please don’t use our faith to justify prejudice.John 21
**
Hey Mudgely, I see you are hurling around the insults again!**
No end of that lately. Apparently it’s acceptable for atheists to enter this forum and defame Catholics with terms like “bigot.” That is always the last resort of people who have no other argument.
Here’s a question I’d like the defenders of legalizing sodomite marriage to answer:
Would you also defend the legal right of fathers to marry their sons?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Its not necessary, and whether you are or not, it makes you look like a bigot. I don’t understand why you feel the need to use such words just because you don’t support something. Please don’t use our faith to justify prejudice. **
It is not prejudice to condemn sodomy. It is the teaching of the Church. That you as a Catholic want to whitewash what homosexuality is really about shows where your heart is … with the sodomites.
Shame on you.
Do you think St. Paul was also a bigot?
Paul preaches sodomy as a sin against the natural law in Romans 1:18-32:
“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
It is not prejudice to condemn sodomy. It is the teaching of the Church. That you as a Catholic want to whitewash what homosexuality is really about shows where your heart is … with the sodomites.
Shame on you.
Do you think St. Paul was also a bigot?
Paul preaches sodomy as a sin against the natural law in Romans 1:18-32:
“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
M
mo3
Guest
I have never promoted a Catholic theocracy and never implied it. The fact you are interpreting a government that forbids gay marriage as one that is a theocracy shows your lack of intolerance of others just because they have different values.
We have lots of history. Please give me your best educated guess as to the accurate percentage? It must be extremely low which make this argument irrelevant.
You are comparing a Gay marriages (of which only 2% of the population are homosexual) to the establishment of minority of governments? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with establishing new governments. I can’t find any logic here.
God bless.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What I do know is that Paul was speaking within a particular context which you have conveniently ignored. He was teaching people, and he was speaking in reference to “Sodom” because distinctions like “Gay” and “Homosexual” did not exist. It is not necessary for you to use the word “Sodomite” in a public debate; nobody else is using that word, and the fact that you used it within the context of this discussion implies that you intended to insult gay people, rather than describe what they stand for politically. Its disrespect; no-matter whose right or wrong. A mature person, who understands the sensitivity of the situation, would not have done what you did, regardless of what side of the debate they are on. The fact that you would try to liken your attitude to St. Paul is to me an insult, and simply looks just like another attempt to disguise bullying and prejudice using scripture. The reality is that terms such as “sodomite” are now in this present day and age inflammatory words; and you choose to ignore that.
Shame on you.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
So, MoM2, you propose faithful Catholics and more than half of the population who believe SS"M" is wrong should just throw in the towel? Hand over the victory to them – and accept a definition of marriage that accommodates the private interest of same sex couples? A definition so far from the public and social benefit of marriage?
The state may just set aside the fact that marriage preceded, in fact, created society. It was not invented by the Catholic Church and not invented by any country. It is a reality across cultures and societies of a union of a man and a woman and the children produced in that union. The union is not replaceable and hence there is no such thing as SS"M".
Same sex couples want a public recognition of a loving committed relationship, as being claimed. That is not enough for the union to be made equal or equivalent to marriage. SS"M" spells a social disaster for the future
Tell you what, perhaps the fight is not in the legislature and in front of courts with judges as what happened in the ruling by that actively homosexual judge in California. The picture does not look good, with the great momentum that homosexualists have, the agenda at play in academia, the medical and legal professions serving as their tools, the gay culture stoked by a leftist media and helped along by the president.
For a correction, the battle will need to be fought at the top, in November of this year. And around the dinner table with our families. Yes, some of us have homosexuals in our families and we are not proposing that homosexuals go back to the closet. Just as important, we have to support the Catholic teaching that our homosexuals deserve our love, but the insistence to have the law allow SS"M" is not, cannot be, supported. It will effectively redefine marriage and parenthood. See How Redefining Marriage Redefines Parenthood. It’s tragedy behind tragedy.
In places where SS"M" is legal and where same sex couples filed for divorce, the movement has spawned a new set of tangled family laws in same sex divorces and child custody battles. An actual case that reached New York Court of Appeals: Debra H. v Janice R. As for ‘creative’ parenting via IVF, an option that gay couples are known to take, take a read how complicated a case can get in this New Jersey legal battle. A gay couple fought a sister that acted as their surrogate and a custody battle ensued on custody of five year old twin girls.
SS"M" necessarily disconnects something innate between a parent and a child. It cannot be said that such outcome are unpredictable. With the revamp of the institution of marriage, parenthood and all the responsibilities attached to it gets blurred. It’s the end game of SS"M."
!
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
You don’t seem to understand, and maybe you don’t want to. Cultural definitions of marriage are not set in stone; its not dogma, and it is evident that they can change if they become impractical. The damage that gay-marriage will do, is relative and is only relevant to me in so far as my belief as a Catholic is true. In other words, what I actually believe is damaging to human beings in the respect of homosexuality and marriage may very well be meaningless to a secular court because the supposed damage is only real if my beliefs are objectively true. Homosexuality is only an offence to God if God exists; and as a Catholic that’s all I am concerned with. I don’t care what other Cultures think about Gay rights. In order for my beliefs to be relevant to the changing of laws in a pluralistic society I would have to prove to the court the objectivity of my beliefs; and any one that studies the history of religious philosophy will realise that will never happen.
While in general I reject gay marriage, I don’t waste my time trying to convince the courts why my religious beliefs should be considered relevant to the debate on Gay marriage.
If I knew that God did not exist as Catholics understand it, I would not reject Gay marriage or homosexuality and I would perceive religious entities as an ignorant and oppressive force in secular society. I would not perceive anything they have to say about their faith as relevant to how a society should function unless I perceived some kind of pragmatic benefit such as “it is wrong to kill”; such a law is pragmatically beneficial to society. My Catholic beliefs is ultimately the only reason I reject gay marriage. Otherwise its simply blind prejudice.
Its not about throwing in the towel; its about facing reality and placing our efforts elsewhere such as the preservation and the propagation of the Catholic faith; I think that’s more important and ultimately more fruitful.
Fantasies won’t help anybody.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Just quickly on this part of your post. Perhaps the word grates, but there is something about the directness and simplification with its use. When someone uses the word ‘homosexual,’ there invariably arises a side discussion of what the person means, active homosexual or just homosexual? Being a homosexual does not necessarily translate to the act, which is sinful and not the condition. And discussion would sometimes veer to the discussion of anal sex, which is not the point of most if not all homosexuality threads. Then there is ‘gay’ versus ‘same sex attracted.’ In fact there was a long thread where a number of CAF members who identify as gay but celibate do not like the term same sex attracted, which to me is descriptive without the loaded connotation. :whacky:!
I think we have become victims of too much political correctness.
,
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
MindOverMatter
and the fact that you used it within the context of this discussion implies that you intended to insult gay people, rather than describe what they stand for politically. Its disrespect; no-matter whose right or wrong. A mature person, who understands the sensitivity of the situation, would not have done what you did, regardless of what side of the debate they are on. The fact that you would try to liken your attitude to St. Paul is to me an insult, and simply looks just like another attempt to disguise bullying and prejudice using scripture. The reality is that terms such as “sodomite” are now in this present day and age inflammatory words; and you choose to ignore that.
You conveniently ignore the fact that Paul uses the words “degrading” and “shameful.”
“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
There is nothing the slightest bit “gay” about sodomy. Look the word up in the dictionary. For you to say that Paul was a bigot (in using the words"degrading" and “shameful” … shows how gutless a Catholic you are about saying the truth as frankly as Paul would have said it. Instead you make me out to be the bigot … and by extension Paul too, even more so since “degrading” and “shameful” (his words) are also judgment words.
I’ll ask you again: if you are going to defend sodomy as something merely “gay”, rather than evil, are you also going to defend legalizing sodomy between a father and a son? If you are going to defend the right of sodomites to marry, are you also going to defend the right of sodomite fathers and sons to marry?
Its not about throwing in the towel; its about facing reality and placing our efforts elsewhere such as the preservation and the propagation of the Catholic faith; I think that’s more important and ultimately more fruitful.
Paul said that we should do both. And he did.
and the fact that you used it within the context of this discussion implies that you intended to insult gay people, rather than describe what they stand for politically. Its disrespect; no-matter whose right or wrong. A mature person, who understands the sensitivity of the situation, would not have done what you did, regardless of what side of the debate they are on. The fact that you would try to liken your attitude to St. Paul is to me an insult, and simply looks just like another attempt to disguise bullying and prejudice using scripture. The reality is that terms such as “sodomite” are now in this present day and age inflammatory words; and you choose to ignore that.
You conveniently ignore the fact that Paul uses the words “degrading” and “shameful.”
“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
There is nothing the slightest bit “gay” about sodomy. Look the word up in the dictionary. For you to say that Paul was a bigot (in using the words"degrading" and “shameful” … shows how gutless a Catholic you are about saying the truth as frankly as Paul would have said it. Instead you make me out to be the bigot … and by extension Paul too, even more so since “degrading” and “shameful” (his words) are also judgment words.
I’ll ask you again: if you are going to defend sodomy as something merely “gay”, rather than evil, are you also going to defend legalizing sodomy between a father and a son? If you are going to defend the right of sodomites to marry, are you also going to defend the right of sodomite fathers and sons to marry?
Its not about throwing in the towel; its about facing reality and placing our efforts elsewhere such as the preservation and the propagation of the Catholic faith; I think that’s more important and ultimately more fruitful.
Paul said that we should do both. And he did.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
And how do you propose to do that, placing our efforts elsewhere? Preserving and propagating the Catholic faith? Do you wish to offer your services to the USCCB or to the Vatican?
You seem to be speaking from both sides of the mouth.
And you, sir, if you can’t answer the above questions, would be wasting everybody’s time and effort. You have nothing to offer except empty arguments and propositions.
,
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
This is not a smart thing to say. I would be very careful about saying things that are generally associated with racist and prejudice people. That’s exactly the kind of rant that I have heard from white people (who are known to be racist) that don’t like the fact they are unable to say certain things, and want to imply that they are being oppressed.
This to me is just an excuse. Its not about too much political correctness. Its about having respect for other people even if we disagree with their lifestyle. Some gay people live good lives. The people in Sodom where clearly more than just “gay”, they were hedonistic, they where evil, and wanted to rape an angel; whereas there are many gay people that are just brainwashed or are not aware that their behaviour is truly wrong; apart from being gay, they are just the same as everybody else. There are other connotations with the word sodomite that makes this word unsuitable in current debates. In fact you are empowering the gay rights activists to point their figure and say “this person is prejudice”. The last thing we want to do is give society the impression that we are just using belief as an excuse to express hatred. The is not what the Catholic church is about, and I would never associate with anyone who felt they could go around referring to gay people as sodomites.
Its about using the brain that God gave us.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
And you seem to be fond of assertions which implies a lack of understanding.
Of course you would say that. You don’t want to believe that I have offered anything that would make you appear as a fool. I really don’t care if you do not agree with me, and I am not going to waste my time with somebody who refuses to acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong.
M
mo3
Guest
There is a pattern with “MindOverMatter2” arguments. I asked him this question 2 times:
Would you vote for a law that would make abortion illegal 100% of the time?
He has so far refused to answer this question. Why? His answer would expose the fallacies of his logic and arguments.
God bless.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Again you are ignoring the context. Paul was teaching people about his faith; not calling people names in disguise of religious righteousness. Homosexuality is shameful and degrading in the respect that it offends the nature that God gave us. Its shameful just like masturbation and any other sin that offends God. But what does that have to do with having respect for other people. The term that these people go by is “GAY”; not sodomite. Do you go around calling atheists evil and hedonists evil? In a civil discussion you call them by their names regardless of the immorality of their actions. It is about respect. You are not perfect. You sin, You do evil. You are evil to. Hypocrite!!!
If you really think that God respects you for calling gay people sodomites, then I have to say that you are a fool; and its people like you that draws so much hatred from the community towards the Church.
- Status