Poll saying white Catholics embrace same-sex marriage than other Americans

[Book_Worm]

I don’t think your imposing, you just know what is right and that’s it. Its like if your with your friends and they tell you to smoke some pot, and they offer it to you. and you know that is wrong, you simply say not I don’t want to. Your not imposing on anyone, you know that is not right so you keep yourself from committing something bad.

Just as you would simply not get gay married?

Your analogy is wrong because you are indeed imposing your beliefs on someone else since you are preventing them from doing something that they do not consider wrong and is now legal in some states.

 

[christus_vincit]

Your analogy is wrong because you are indeed imposing your beliefs on someone else since you are preventing them from doing something that they do not consider wrong and is now legal in some states.

By that logic if someone is doing something they do not consider wrong - say murder - and murder was legal in some states, I couldn’t “impose” my beliefs to stop such atrocities?

Oh wait - that’s already happening. Its called abortion.

No human “law” is just that contradicts the Divine Law, no matter how many people say its OK.

 

[Book_Worm]

So if the government considered them defective, and a large portion of society agreed, they’d be defective?

You might want to look up “legal positivism” and the debates prior to the Nuremberg Trials.

A family consists of a father, a mother, and offspring according to the Natural Law. *

In the event that the father or mother demise, it may consist of one parent and offspring.

In the event that both parents demise, it may consist of adoptive parents and the offspring of others.

All of these are natural events consistent with our species and the design and intent of our functions.

Legal positivism basically states that “In any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits.”

It rejects Natural Law and believes that the validity of a law can never depend on its morality. We saw repeatedly in the 20th century where that leads.

Natural law is the law which St Paul describes as the law written in their hearts referring to the Gentiles. It is the law which is referred to in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”**

In other words, law which are inconsistent with the Natural Law are not laws at all.

.

• A single man or woman who adopts a child would not fit into your narrow parameters. If my DH and I did not have “offspring,” we would not be considered a family since we would not be a mother and father. If my MIL lived with me after my DH died, we would not be a family. If my DH died and I lived with my cousin, who had also been widowed, we would not be a family, either.

Yet society would consider all of the above to be families.

**There are a great many people who feel that a government which prevents them from committing themselves in marriage to the person they love is indeed depriving them of their right to happiness.

 

[Book_Worm]

By that logic if someone is doing something they do not consider wrong - say murder - and murder was legal in some states, I couldn’t “impose” my beliefs to stop such atrocities?

Oh wait - that’s already happening. Its called abortion.

No human “law” is just that contradicts the Divine Law, no matter how many people say its OK.

No, there’s a difference between laws that harm others and those that do not. Abortion clearly harms someone else.

 

[phil19034]

• A single man or woman who adopts a child would not fit into your narrow parameters. If my DH and I did not have “offspring,” we would not be considered a family since we would not be a mother and father. If my MIL lived with me after my DH died, we would not be a family. If my DH died and I lived with my cousin, who had also been widowed, we would not be a family, either.

Yet society would consider all of the above to be families.

**There are a great many people who feel that a government which prevents them from committing themselves in marriage to the person they love is indeed depriving them of their right to happiness.

Single people should not be allowed to adopt when there are plenty of married couples trying to adopt. A child should not be subjected to not having a mother and father due to a choice. Death is one thing, but choosing to raise a child without a mother or father is wrong.

The rest of what you typed is simply silly. The natural law recognizes extended families.

The problem here is what is the PRIMARY purpose of marriage? Who is the marriage for? The husband and wife, or the children? The primary purpose of marriage is to have BIRTH children. A man and a woman who are not open to having children, should not be getting married (it is very different when they want kids, but can’t). This is why divorce is wrong, it hurts the kids. Marriage is not about love & happiness. If it was, then divorce would be totally cool. Of course, we want to have love & happiness in our marriages, and that’s why it’s important to select the correct spouse… but that’s not the primary reason. The primary reason is to settle down and raise a family. Not 2.5 kids, but a real family, as many as God grants.

But instead, today, we glorify sex. Fornication was all over the TV, and now we act like fornication is no big deal, we act like it’s not a mortal sin. Now we have two gay men taking a shower together, open lip kissing on Days of Our Lives! Soon, we will have more kids experimenting with bi-sexuality, group sex, etc. What percentage of the world is homosexual? 1% maybe? We, why does it seem like it’s growing? Also, if it’s not environmental… why was it that we had one girl on American Idol who was adopted by two lesbians become a lesbian herself? If homosexuality was 100% biological, then those odds must have been higher than winning the lottery that two lesbians could adopt a girl who would biologically become a lesbian.

No, this is why children need BOTH mom and dad. So they can learn correctly about gender. So they can role play. Daughters pretend to be their moms and sons pretending to be like dad. Then, they also learn to respect the other sex based on the interactions of their parents with each other and them.

Back in my cafeteria catholic days, I used to think gay marriage didn’t hurt anyone. But now, I’m starting to see the social ills that fornication, contraception, abortion, co-habitation, no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage all have on society. Our since of morality has been greatly altered due to this and we are losing our holiness.

In closing, let’s remember what Our Lady taught us… sexual sin may be the lesser of all mortal sins, but it leads more people to hell than any other sins.

 

[phil19034]

No, there’s a difference between laws that harm others and those that do not. Abortion clearly harms someone else.

Good laws are just laws. Just laws must be based on morality. Morality must be based on Moral Laws. Moral Laws come from God.

Bad laws are not just laws. Unjust laws are immoral laws. Immorality is based defying moral law. Defying Moral Law is what the devil wants.

So in the end… there only two kinds of laws. Laws that support morality and laws that do not.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Are you assuming causality?

Not at all. Just showing that when it comes to complex, multi factor issues correlations go all over the place. It’s correlated with those groups probably not because they teach abstinence, but because they are all very insular and have a strong system of social controls that keep victims silent. Note that Catholicism teaches premarital abstinence but doesn’t have a higher rate. But Catholics tend to be less insular. They also tend to have higher incomes and be more educated. There are so many factors that play into domestic violence that pointing to abstinence teachings as a problem would be insane.

Men with a high number of sex partners are probably more violent (if that’s actually the case) because of a million other things, including higher than average testosterone, upbringing, and social environment. There is a correlation between men having high testosterone and going to prison. Men with high testosterone are more likely to play professional sports. Correlations run rampant.

But I do not see any evidence what so ever that a man who has premarital sex will justify spousal abuse to himself. There are just too many assumptions and leaps of logic in that.

 

[christus_vincit]

No, there’s a difference between laws that harm others and those that do not. Abortion clearly harms someone else.

And there is the point of contention. The Church clearly states that homosexual acts are gravely disordered and therefore cause great harm to those who engage in such acts.

Yes, abortion harms because it takes an innocent life. Where abortion causes the death of a body, so do acts of grave immorality take the life of the soul.

You need to think with the mind of the Church.

 

[christus_vincit]

Not at all. Just showing that when it comes to complex, multi factor issues correlations go all over the place. It’s correlated with those groups probably not because they teach abstinence, but because they are all very insular and have a strong system of social controls that keep victims silent. Note that Catholicism teaches premarital abstinence but doesn’t have a higher rate. But Catholics tend to be less insular. They also tend to have higher incomes and be more educated. There are so many factors that play into domestic violence that pointing to abstinence teachings as a problem would be insane.

Men with a high number of sex partners are probably more violent (if that’s actually the case) because of a million other things, including higher than average testosterone, upbringing, and social environment. There is a correlation between men having high testosterone and going to prison. Men with high testosterone are more likely to play professional sports. Correlations run rampant.

But I do not see any evidence what so ever that a man who has premarital sex will justify spousal abuse to himself. There are just too many assumptions and leaps of logic in that.

Fair enough! I honestly haven’t researched the subject. However, I think the message that was trying to be conveyed was that when a man sees a woman as an object, he is more likely to harm her. Is it really a stretch to say that men who see women as objects of sexual gratification are more likely to physically abuse them as well? I don’t think so. If a man regularly reduces a woman to an object when it comes to sex, that says something about his character. Sure, biological factors come into play to an extent, but they can’t be used to excuse moral negligence.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Why would someone marry a person of the opposite sex they have no attraction (or ever will) to? Would you? Getting married on this basis is a recipe for a lifetime of misery.

Not everyone is called to marriage. :nope:

Otherwise, that’s a really lame reason to allow so-called gay “marriage”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’d say this sort of thinking has indeed been very effective in changing the minds of many people who indeed did hold prejudiced and unjustly discriminatory views about homosexuality. There is a very human tendency to scapegoat in which we really like to condemn those prone to sins to which we, ourselves, are not terribly inclined. “Oh, THOSE, people. They’re so depraved. I’m so glad I’m not like THAT.”

But such thinking does not easily survive actually meeting and KNOWING “those” people. So the cycle starts over. Instead of thinking it through and recognizing that sinning doesn’t negate all the goodness of the sinner, the scapegoater now picks a new villain. “Oh, those homophobes. I’m so glad I’m not a backward Neanderthal like THAT anymore.” New scapegoat, same old attitude. They all fail to understand the basic premise of Christianity!

But those who have a balanced understanding of Original Sin, Grace and Salvation don’t see homosexuality that way. It’s an inclination to a particular sin. We all have them. THEY aren’t fundamentally any different than WE are. We all are fallen and inclined to sin. Which sorts of sins hardly matters in the grand scheme. The point is that we need to repent of those sins and ask for the Grace to overcome them. When you understand sin that way, the estesbob approach naturally results.

:clapping:

 

[ltravis]

The Church and societies around the world have defined family as one man and one woman. The two of you are bound to each other willingly to bring new life into the world.

I don’t think your example applies. Some want us to believe the following:

One man + one woman is not the only way. But in no way does
One man + one man or
One woman + one woman
equal the reason we have billions of people today.

Our bodies represent our reality as male or female and many men and women will marry. The propaganda is based on emotion primarily. So even Catholics have fallen for the idea that same-sex marriage is not hurting anyone. The Church teaches that is not true, but the media is clearly pushing a social experiment that will fade.

Truth is truth.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, i agree with all that. The only parallel I was drawing was in people who stick with the church even though they reject one of its fundamental truths. In our day Catholics who reject sexual morality teaching, and in Jesus day, those (if they existed) who didn’t leave Jesus but still didn’t accept his Eucharistic teaching. Just a side issue that struck me.

LT

 

[ltravis]

Yes, i agree with all that. The only parallel I was drawing was in people who stick with the church even though they reject one of its fundamental truths. In our day Catholics who reject its sexual morality teaching, and in Jesus day, those (if they existed) who didn’t leave Jesus but still didn’t accept his Eucharistic teaching. Just a side issue that struck me.

LT

 

[Usige]

Every time I see things like this I can’t help but recall Luke 17:2:It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.The problem when Catholics support things in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church (and indeed scripture) is that they are will be held accountable for upholding sin. If you teach your children that gay marriage is good then Christ himself has said you will be accountable for leading them into sin. It is not just those who are committing homosexual acts that are held accountable, but those who promote it will be also. All of us are held accountable not just for our own sins, but in leading others to sin also. The above passage does not make me think that those who knowingly uphold sin as a virtue will be dealt with kindly.

I weep for whole generations lost in the name of being just and fair by turning a blind eye to sin.

 

[Midwest88]

The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it’s not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs’ teaching on this. At least I know that I’m far from alone in this struggle!

Seriously?

I have a family that’s a homosexual, few of my friends are bisexual, the president of my fraternity is a homosexual. Do I support gay “marriage”? I once did - I was once rather ardent about the issue, now I don’t.

I mean, even coming from secular point of view - two people of the same sex lusting over one another is a deviation from actual normalcy: male & female lusting over one another having sex and reproducing. Two people of the same sex getting “married” is an straight up oxymoron and marriage just becomes some emotive symbolic slop fest of “holding hands forever.”

 

[Midwest88]

LOL! I guess I should turn my BA & MA back in since I just don’t believe the same way that you do. I must live in another world here in Northern California than you do in Chicagoland, but women are not victims of continuous objectification. Consenting adults, are just that, not that poor stupid woman being used by that big bad man.

It surely ain’t helping your reasoning & analytical skills on this type of issue.

 

[Midwest88]

How does a gay couple form a family unit?

They buy – er – adopt, children.

 

[Usige]

The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it’s not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs’ teaching on this. At least I know that I’m far from alone in this struggle!

I know plenty of gay people and have a couple in my family. I also have a number of alcoholics in my family. I no more support alcoholics getting drunk, then I do gay persons marrying. I have compassion for their struggles, but it is not loving to turn a blind eye to things that imperil their souls.

Put simply, both alcoholism and homosexuality are disordered. I don’t care if they occur naturally, so does cancer; it doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Alcoholics who are honest with themselves know that drinking is not something they can indulge in. It is a cross God has given them to bear. The same with homosexuality.

As Archbishop Sheen once said “we would all like to have tailor made crosses”. In other words we are all willing to bear a cross of our choosing, but tell someone they must bear a cross that is a true burden and then it becomes unjust to ask them to bear that cross. Christ never promissed us that life would be easy. In fact he told us we would all have trials and tribulations. For some it is addiction, others perhaps anger issues, and others disorder sexual desires.To paraphrase Archbishop Sheen; those crosses are ladders to Heaven, not simply road block to happiness.

 

[hazcompat]

Second reading
From a sermon On Pastors by Saint Augustine, bishop
Do whatever they tell you, but do not follow what they do

Shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. But what are the shepherds to hear? Thus says the Lord God: Behold I myself am over the shepherds, and I will claim my sheep from their hands.

Hear and learn, you sheep of God. God calls for an accounting of his sheep from the wicked shepherds and inquires into the death of his sheep at their hands. For in another passage he speaks through the same prophet: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. You shall hear the word from my mouth and you shall point out the way to them in my name. When I say to the sinner: You shall die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked man from his wicked way, because of his wickedness he shall die, but you shall be held responsible for his death. If, however, you warn the wicked man to turn away from his wickedness, and he fails to do so, he shall die in his iniquity, but you shall have saved your soul.

Dear brothers, what does this mean? Do you see how dangerous it is to keep silent? The sinner dies and rightly so; he dies in his wickedness and in his sin, for his failure to heed you has killed him. He could have found the Lord, the living shepherd who says: I live. But he was heedless; and the one appointed for this task, the watchman, did not warn him. The wicked one then justly suffers death and the watchman rightly suffers damnation. But the Lord says, if you say to the wicked man: You shall surely die, and if he fails to heed the sword of judgment with which I have threatened him, that sword will overtake and kill him, and he will die in his sin; but you will have saved your soul. Therefore it is our task not to keep silent, and it is your task, even if we ourselves are silent, to hear the words of the shepherd from the Scriptures.

…

Peace

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Your analogy is wrong because you are indeed imposing your beliefs on someone else since you are preventing them from doing something that they do not consider wrong and is now legal in some states.

Every law prevents someone from doing something or compels them to do something.

Every law imposes beliefs - I believe you should support the government, I believe you should report for active duty, I believe you should go no faster than 60 mph.

.