Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

[rlg94086]

Yes, I read your post quoting the bishops.

And?

Are their answers lacking logic? Bigoted? Ignorant? Do they support your personal view? Do you care about what our Bishops have to say?

 

[1234]

Rigg, you may justify your own opposition to same-sex marriage because you’re a Catholic and you listen to your bishops–(many Catholics don’t).

However, we are talking about civil law, not Catholic regulations and dogma. Civil same-sex marriages, not church marriages . The state does not regard marriage the way the Catholic church does. I suspect that other religions don’t, either.

If the Catholic church continued to dominate civil law, and thank fortune it doesn’t, we’d still be burning heretics.

Because of its turning a blind eye to pedophilia and what many regard as an unbalanced emphasis on priorities like protecting its own institutions over the welfare of those entrusted to it, the Catholic church has lost a great deal of credibility, especially among its own, which is what is behind the California poll (it never had much credibility in the non-Catholic world).

 

[StAnastasia]

And? Are their answers lacking logic? Bigoted? Ignorant? Do they support your personal view? Do you care about what our Bishops have to say?

You ask more questions than the inquisition! I don’t have time to answer them all, but suffice it to say I am not a champion of gay marriage. I think the government should get out of the business of sanctifying marriages, and simply grant civil unions, leaving it to the mosques and synagogues and churches to bless those marriages they choose to bless.

 

[rlg94086]

Rigg, you may justify your own opposition to same-sex marriage because you’re a Catholic and you listen to your bishops–(many Catholics don’t).

However, we are talking about civil law, not Catholic regulations and dogma. Civil same-sex marriages, not church marriages . The state does not regard marriage the way the Catholic church does. I suspect that other religions don’t, either.

If the Catholic church continued to dominate civil law, and thank fortune it doesn’t, we’d still be burning heretics.

Because of its turning a blind eye to pedophilia and what many regard as an unbalanced emphasis on priorities like protecting its own institutions over the welfare of those entrusted to it, the Catholic church has lost a great deal of credibility, especially among its own, which is what is behind the California poll (it never had much credibility in the non-Catholic world).

Yes, that is why I make arguments that are valid regardless of Church teaching. Of course, when I do that people complain about the lack of spiritual in my arguments.

Anyway, quoting the Bishops was for the benefit of Catholics, who are supposed to vote their conscience as properly formed by Catholic teaching. The poll in question was from California Catholics. A large number of Californians ignore Church teaching, but they shouldn’t. If you aren’t Catholic, then I guess it doesn’t matter to you.

 

[rlg94086]

You ask more questions than the inquisition! I don’t have time to answer them all, but suffice it to say I am not a champion of gay marriage. I think the government should get out of the business of sanctifying marriages, and simply grant civil unions, leaving it to the mosques and synagogues and churches to bless those marriages they choose to bless.

From the same FAQs…

What is the Church’s position on legislation to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships?

On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: “We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.”
In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, n.6).

Why are the U.S. bishops supporting a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriage?

The bishops are supporting an amendment that simply defines marriage as only the union of a man and a woman. They are doing so because they want to bear witness to a truth that is given by God in the natural order of creation and that is confirmed by divine Revelation in the Bible. Protecting marriage in this way will benefit children, families, and the common good of society itself.
In addition, many states have adopted similar amendments to their constitutions and others are preparing to place a proposal on the ballot. The USCCB Administrative Committee has urged bishops to lead a two-pronged strategy of education and advocacy in favor of laws and constitutional amendments that define and protect at both state and federal levels.

 

[1234]

From the same FAQs…

I regard the Constitution the way many Catholics regard the rosary–keep your dirty mitts off it! It sounds as if the Bishops don’t have a lot of support for their meddling with our sacred documents. Not among California Catholics, probably not among Catholics elsewhere in the union, and not among most other American citizens, I suspect.

It is my understanding that the country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. And that we don’t amend our (sacred) Constitution to make allowances for ideas about God (which differ), “natural order” (ditto), the credibility and interpretation of the Bible (opinions differ, greatly) and “Revelation”–whatever that means.

I also don’t regard celibate bishops as having an inside track on understanding marriage.

 

[rlg94086]

I regard the Constitution the way many Catholics regard the rosary–keep your dirty mitts off it! It sounds as if the Bishops don’t have a lot of support for their meddling with our sacred documents. Not among California Catholics, probably not among Catholics elsewhere in the union, and not among most other American citizens, I suspect.

It is my understanding that the country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. And that we don’t amend our (sacred) Constitution to make allowances for ideas about God (which differ), “natural order” (ditto), the credibility and interpretation of the Bible (opinions differ, greatly) and “Revelation”–whatever that means.

I also don’t regard celibate bishops as having an inside track on understanding marriage.

Your understanding of the “separation of church and state” is seriously flawed, and your attempted ad hominem against our Bishops shows a lack of any real ability to discuss the issue logically.

Amending our Constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and woman is not an issue of “church and state.”. It is adding the obvious on behalf of those who are incapable of comprehending simple truth.

What our Constitution allows is for faithful to vote according to their properly-formed consciences and for heretics to vote their ill-formed consciences. As the number of heretics increase, your side will win out. God willing though, Catholics will learn their faith and the tide will turn.

 

[StAnastasia]

I also don’t regard celibate bishops as having an inside track on understanding marriage.

True - their personal experience would be minimal, but they could be advised by married people.

 

[larkin31]

Yes, the intrinsic value of procreation is what gives value to society. As you pointed out, anyone can raise a child. If that was the primary value, then marriage is a free for all.

No.

This is faulty logic based on this false premise: That ALL pairs who can contribute to society should be able to marry.

That is of course FALSE, and no one is arguing such here. Except you, as a sly form of rebuttal that mis-characterizes the argument of those for gay marriage.

These false summaries of gay marriage argument are tiresome.

 

[1234]

Your understanding of the “separation of church and state” is seriously flawed, and your attempted ad hominem against our Bishops shows a lack of any real ability to discuss the issue logically.

Amending our Constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and woman is not an issue of “church and state.”. It is adding the obvious on behalf of those who are incapable of comprehending simple truth.

What our Constitution allows is for faithful to vote according to their properly-formed consciences and for heretics to vote their ill-formed consciences. As the number of heretics increase, your side will win out. God willing though, Catholics will learn their faith and the tide will turn.

Catholics may vote as they wish. It would appear, however, that an increasing number of them are not impressed with the arguments of the RCC. It does not appear that the tide will turn anytime soon.

What is most important is that this country is not a theocracy. It was founded by men who were all too familiar with its roots in the Puritans and in Catholic Europe and wanted no such heritage in its future. Therefore the Constitution absolutely forbade any dominance by one religious group, whether Catholic or Evangelical or Islam in the formation and execution of its laws.

 

[djeter]

I’ve been debating Prop 8 overturn recently with a group on Amazon. I’ve summarized the challenge I’ve offered them here, based on something I found in Professor Michael Sandel’s book (and PBS program) Justice and some advice from Dr. Edward Feser, whose blog I recently found.

It’s all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/08/17/discussing-prop-8/

See if you don’t find the approach captivating…

dj

 

[larkin31]

I’ve been debating Prop 8 overturn recently with a group on Amazon. I’ve summarized the challenge I’ve offered them here, based on something I found in Professor Michael Sandel’s book (and PBS program) Justice and some advice from Dr. Edward Feser, whose blog I recently found.

It’s all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/08/17/discussing-prop-8/

See if you don’t find the approach captivating…

dj

There is nothing really new, here…but…

What I appreciate about this blog post is that it at least dispenses with the weak “This wrecks society” or the weak “This has never been done before” arguments and simply states “Homosexuality is immoral because God says so” (my words). It is clearly true that the Bible condemns homosexuality (more in the OT than in the NT, and Jesus never mentions it, but still…). I don’t try to argue that this is not what the Bible says. My only answer is that I disagree and consider the condemnation against homosexuality an outdated sexual purity law. But at least we are cutting to the chase, here.

This is also why I write that “Justice trumps morality in America when there are no victims and no harm to society.” This is my way of replying to the morality argument, “So what? Show that this objection is ANYTHING MORE THAN an expression of an affront to moral sensibilities.” Otherwise, for me, it is ultimately another form of weak argument.

But thanks for posting this.

 

[StAnastasia]

Catholics may vote as they wish. It would appear, however, that an increasing number of them are not impressed with the arguments of the RCC. It does not appear that the tide will turn anytime soon.

I attended Mass in a California suburb last October (before the election). A couple had a table outside where they were lobbying parishioners to support Proposition 8. They were largely ignored, although a minority of the congregation confronted them vociferously, rejecting their arguments. I noticed at the social hour that this couple quietly folded up their table and left before the next Mass started.

What is most important is that this country is not a theocracy.

That was tried in Geneva, and it failed.

It was founded by men who were all too familiar with its roots in the Puritans and in Catholic Europe and wanted no such heritage in its future. Therefore the Constitution absolutely forbade any dominance by one religious group, whether Catholic or Evangelical or Islam in the formation and execution of its laws.

And yet religious groups do still dominate, although to a diminishing extent.

 

[rlg94086]

No.

This is faulty logic based on this false premise: That ALL pairs who can contribute to society should be able to marry.

That is of course FALSE, and no one is arguing such here. Except you, as a sly form of rebuttal that mis-characterizes the argument of those for gay marriage.

These false summaries of gay marriage argument are tiresome.

Not at all, I agree that not ALL pairs who can contribute to society should be able to marry - only pairs of men and women who are not closely related. Thank you for once again strengthening the argument against homosexual unions.

You must be tired because every time you start out a post with “no,” you end up validating my points.

 

[larkin31]

Not at all, I agree that not ALL pairs who can contribute to society should be able to marry - only pairs of men and women who are not closely related. Thank you for once again strengthening the argument against homosexual unions.

You must be tired because every time you start out a post with “no,” you end up validating my points.

I invalidated your summary of your opposition. That it helped clarify your argument is fine with me. I KNOW how you want to define marriage. That is what we are debating!

Now, if you were to make an argument rather than simply state a claim…

 

[StAnastasia]

What I appreciate about this blog post is that it at least dispenses with the weak “This wrecks society” or the weak “This has never been done before” arguments…This is also why I write that “Justice trumps morality in America when there are no victims and no harm to society.” This is my way of replying to the morality argument, “So what? Show that this objection is ANYTHING MORE THAN an expression of an affront to moral sensibilities.” Otherwise, for me, it is ultimately another form of weak argument. But thanks for posting this.

Yes - I have yet to see any evidence that treating LGBT people humanely wrecks society. My kids (14 and 10) reflect the experience of their contemporaries at our Catholic school: they hardly notice it. The staff who are gay contribute to the school community just like everyone else, and are just as beloved as everyone else. When this generation grows up, sexual orientation will largely be a non-issue.

StAnastasia

 

[rlg94086]

I invalidated your summary of your opposition. That it helped clarify your argument is fine with me. I KNOW how you want to define marriage. That is what we are debating!

Now, if you were to make an argument rather than simply state a claim…

You have totally obliterated every argument you have attempted. I explained that the intrinsic procreative nature of heterosexual marriage is the primary value to society and the reason for maintaining that model of marriage. The only response anyone could come up with is the childrearing by homosexual couples. I exposed the fallacy of that reasoning by explaining that anyone can raise a child. It appears that you are the one without an argument and simply stating a claim.

Since all you have to counter my well-reasoned arguments with is emotion, you have lost the argument.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes - I have yet to see any evidence that treating LGBT people humanely wrecks society. My kids (14 and 10) reflect the experience of their contemporaries at our Catholic school: they hardly notice it. The staff who are gay contribute to the school community just like everyone else, and are just as beloved as everyone else. When this generation grows up, sexual orientation will largely be a non-issue.

StAnastasia

Treating people humanely does not require endorsing their union. I pray that the Catholic faith of this generation is strengthened and people return to the truth.

 

[StAnastasia]

Treating people humanely does not require endorsing their union. I pray that the Catholic faith of this generation is strengthened and people return to the truth.

You would probably not find our diocese congenial. We are a peace-loving people, a diverse and integrated society. Our liturgies are vibrant, our churches thronged with children.

I imagine that when your generation dies off, homophobia will largely die with it. There will be remote intercoastal pockets of resistance, of course, in towns far from colleges, universities and institutions of music, art, theatre, dance, cuisine, etc.

StAnastasia

 

[rlg94086]

You would probably not find our diocese congenial. We are a peace-loving people, a diverse and integrated society. Our liturgies are vibrant, our churches thronged with children.

I imagine that when your generation dies off, homophobia will largely die with it. There will be remote intercoastal pockets of resistance, of course, in towns far from colleges, universities and institutions of music, art, theatre, dance, cuisine, etc.

StAnastasia

What in the world? Homophobia? Again? That is all you’ve got?

My diocese is also congenial. We are also a peace-loving people and a diverse and integrated society. We just believe in following Church teaching rather than society’s lies and heretic ideas posited by theologians who don’t follow Church teaching.

I imagine that when your generation dies off, people will return to sanity. There will be pockets of resistance, just like the tiny hippy communes that hung around after the 60s…