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

[Scottgun]

Conscience, while important, is not an arbiter of Truth. For instance, saying that abortion isn’t wrong because my conscience tells me it isn’t wrong is like sitting in a living room engulfed in flames and saying that because the smoke alarm isn’t beeping, there’s no fire.

“Conscience” these days has been a euphemism for incoherent and self-refuting moral relativism.

 

[edwest2]

I was wondering about your own thoughts about this social issue, not what is written in the CCC. A person can follow the doctrines of the Church and still have their own opinions that are formed by life experience. An example would be a woman or man who fully well understands the provision in the CCC that state using ABC is a sin, even though they don’t agree with that dogma.

Sexual matters are brought up often here. If one fully understands Church teaching about ABC then one should not use it. It can be difficult for some people - even very difficult, since we live in a hyper-sexualized media culture. However, that is when prayer and asking for God’s help comes in. Sex is certainly pleasurable but the Church has always taught it must be open to life.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t think acceptance is the right word. Same-sex marriage was voted down twice in California and laws to protect one man, one woman marriage were passed, but highly paid lobbyists and even door to door visits, confused people, including politicians. It was primarily judges and politicians who changed/invented laws.

Peace,
Ed

I agree with you Ed.

I just want to amplify your statement.

California did not vote down same sex marriage. By popular vote, a strong majority of Californians, simply DEFINED marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution. I don’t see how that violates anyone’s rights??..Then, as you say, one gay federal judge decided it was unconstitutional.

There are 19 states that have legalized same sex marriages. Three by popular vote, eight by vote of their legislature and eight by court decision. Twelve of these are being appealed.

There are 31 states that do not allow or do not recognize same sex marriages.

As of today there are seven different petitions concerning state same-sex marriage bans on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. The petitions come from four separate decisions out of three different U.S. Courts of Appeal on cases emanating from five different states. This could be a very interesting term for the Court.

 

[kozlosap]

Ed- After reading your very well written and thoughtful posts over the years, I could never describe you as anything but an accepting and approachable person. Your research on many different topics here is a blessing for those who like to learn from history and philosophy. I was basically asking for those who just keep answering the question about civil marriage with quotes from the CCC. Surely they must have some reasons that gay marriages will hurt heterosexual relationships/marriages. Critical thinking might be the keywords in this instance. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a safe bet that a majority of couples in the US absolutely know the Church teaching on ABC but disagree with it for many reasons and articulate why they disagree. What I would like to see here is for those who feel that civil marriage for gay couples negatively affect their own lives to explain why and how…
Once again Ed, thank you!

 

[Havard]

Ed- After reading your very well written and thoughtful posts over the years, I could never describe you as anything but an accepting and approachable person. Your research on many different topics here is a blessing for those who like to learn from history and philosophy. I was basically asking for those who just keep answering the question about civil marriage with quotes from the CCC. Surely they must have some reasons that gay marriages will hurt heterosexual relationships/marriages. Critical thinking might be the keywords in this instance. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a safe bet that a majority of couples in the US absolutely know the Church teaching on ABC but disagree with it for many reasons and articulate why they disagree. What I would like to see here is for those who feel that civil marriage for gay couples negatively affect their own lives to explain why and how…
Once again Ed, thank you!

Is your question just for Ed, or do you mind if I take a stab at it?

 

[kozlosap]

A Catholic cannot form his conscience or hold an opinion contrary to a dogma of the Catholic Church, knowing it is a dogma, and remain in full communion.

Whether he or she forms that opinion based on life experience, a vision, a blow to the back of the head, or theological speculation is irrelevant.

./QUOTE

So, you believe that we must check our brains at the door to our Church and just pick up our crayons?

 

[kozlosap]

Is your question just for Ed, or do you mind if I take a stab at it?

Of course! I’m trying to learn as much as I can from posters here and Havard, you are another writer that I greatly admire!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Ed- After reading your very well written and thoughtful posts over the years, I could never describe you as anything but an accepting and approachable person. Your research on many different topics here is a blessing for those who like to learn from history and philosophy. I was basically asking for those who just keep answering the question about civil marriage with quotes from the CCC. Surely they must have some reasons that gay marriages will hurt heterosexual relationships/marriages. Critical thinking might be the keywords in this instance. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a safe bet that a majority of couples in the US absolutely know the Church teaching on ABC but disagree with it for many reasons and articulate why they disagree. What I would like to see here is for those who feel that civil marriage for gay couples negatively affect their own lives to explain why and how…
Once again Ed, thank you!

I see same sex marriages negatively affecting society in this way…

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what the state is doing when it grants same sex couples the status that makes homosexual relationships appear more socially acceptable.

 

[Scottgun]

I was basically asking for those who just keep answering the question about civil marriage with quotes from the CCC

First, it wasn’t from the CCC, it was from this. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Secondly, I post them not just because I believe them, but because they are true and every jot and tittle can be defended. Especially considering that the opposition has nothing but moral relativism in response which is inherently incoherent. In many ways, it reminds me of the Arian heresy. They were the original “Bible Only” guys. They had to be because they didn’t have any other leg to stand on. The funny thing is, today’s defenders of the indefensible don’t even have Scripture to stand on.

 

[Havard]

Of course! I’m trying to learn as much as I can from posters here and Havard, you are another writer that I greatly admire!

Lol, thanks. Then maybe you should set your standards higher, hahaha.

But with regard to your question, this is how I see it. If the government were truly neutral on the matter, it would just treat all people the same, married or single. What it actually does is grant additional benefits to married people That’s effectively an endorsement. So there are already people who argue this isn’t fair, before you take same-sex marriage into the picture. That’s one argument to be had. Then there’s the additional argument of whether same-sex marriage is something to be endorsed.

The Catholic Church takes the position that it’s important for secular governments to endorse traditional marriages because these relationships are fundamental to the furtherance of human life, both biologically and sociologically. This is discrimination, but it is just discrimination. Like tax deductions for charitable giving, governments may, as a matter of prudence, choose to endorse causes that it sees worthy of endorsement. With traditional marriages, it chooses to elevate them not just over gay relationships, but over platonic friendships, blood relationships, etc. It’s focusing on what’s uniquely important about traditional marriages, not on what’s uniquely unimportant about other relationships.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

So, you believe that we must check our brains at the door to our Church and just pick up our crayons?

I would say that if your brain is leading you out of communion with the Church, you’d be better off checking it and picking up some crayons at the door.

Matthew 8:8-9 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire.”

I really haven’t met anyone yet whose brain is so large and so well-developed that she or he knows better than the Church, which Christ Himself founded.

Have you?

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Surely they must have some reasons that gay marriages will hurt heterosexual relationships/marriages.

The passage of laws contrary to the Natural Law invariably hurt society as a whole.

Among the laws passed in the past with much fanfare and drumroll that have turned out to be inimical to a sane and well-ordered society are permission of abortion, euthanasia, liberalization of divorce, and repeal of laws against pornography. None of these have done anything but damage, and they bend the minds of the young towards accepting additional novelties in the name of so-called freedom.

The onus is on advocates of same sex marriage to prove that it will benefit society, not on the opponents to prove that it won’t.

More pernicious is the fact that, as with abortions, unelected Federal judges with life tenure are overturning the democratic process and ramming this social experiment down the throats of unwilling populations.

If anyone is against freedom, it is the proponents of same sex marriage and their allies in the Federal judiciary, whose elitist views as some new ruling class reflect their general moral bankruptcy.

.

 

[phil19034]

And bears can ride bicycles.

Exceptions shouldn’t be the rule for making laws.

.

I agree 100%

 

[edwest2]

Ed- After reading your very well written and thoughtful posts over the years, I could never describe you as anything but an accepting and approachable person. Your research on many different topics here is a blessing for those who like to learn from history and philosophy. I was basically asking for those who just keep answering the question about civil marriage with quotes from the CCC. Surely they must have some reasons that gay marriages will hurt heterosexual relationships/marriages. Critical thinking might be the keywords in this instance. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a safe bet that a majority of couples in the US absolutely know the Church teaching on ABC but disagree with it for many reasons and articulate why they disagree. What I would like to see here is for those who feel that civil marriage for gay couples negatively affect their own lives to explain why and how…
Once again Ed, thank you!

Thank you, very much for your kind words. Aside from various gay marriage equality sites who insist all will be well, it’s not just a personal decision. It would be one thing if two men entered into such an arrangement and then lived their lives, but it’s not. Bakeries who refuse to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, religious who have been threatened for speaking what many have spoken for millennia, individuals who have been censured for speaking out against gay rights ( a woman from Canada who I heard speak on Catholic Radio with host, Al Kresta), a certain gay rights organization that writes ‘civil unions’ make gay people into second-class citizens. In other words, they need to be viewed as one to one equal to straight married couples.

Or this man who was arrested after his boy read a pro-gay marriage storybook in school. He was told it was “not a parental notification issue.”

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620

Little kids do not have the mental or emotional capacity to understand human sexuality like young adults. Who created “Diversity Days” at public schools?

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/0742520331

No one should be bullied or injured for their sexual orientation but come on. Teachers bringing their same-sex wife or husband to school. Why? And “sex education” has gone way too far. A booklet was distributed to middle-schoolers, which I can’t link to, that made gay sex sound fun and even listed places to go to.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-make-the-case-for-marriage

Having same-sex attraction is one thing, but normalizing it as marriage denies the ancient definition of marriage. Attempts to deflect with stories of adopted, abandoned or abused children seem to me to be more of the same. A same sex couple is just like a mother and father. In some cases, it’s made to sound - even better.

The Sexual Revolution was a massive social engineering experiment costing millions of dollars, and millions of marriages since the late 1960s. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association ignored years of studies and published research to vote to make what was a disorder one day, not a disorder the following day. All due to pressure from radical gay activists outside the APA and closeted gays within.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Now Transgender people have been reclassified under similar circumstances - lobbying by activists in the LGBT community. How is a disorder reclassified by lobbying? Science? Anyone?

I think ‘reclassifying’ marriage falls into the same category: lots of lobbying.

Peace,
Ed

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The passage of laws contrary to the Natural Law invariably hurt society as a whole.

Among the laws passed in the past with much fanfare and drumroll that have turned out to be inimical to a sane and well-ordered society are permission of abortion, euthanasia, liberalization of divorce, and repeal of laws against pornography. None of these have done anything but damage, and they bend the minds of the young towards accepting additional novelties in the name of so-called freedom.

Ah ha! I just had an epiphany. Your examples (except abortion) point to issues around individuals vs society. It makes the assumption that the needs of society usually trump the individual. I just don’t think that is where the West is anymore. So the real question (outside of theology & natural law) is whether or not the needs of the society outweigh the smaller group of individuals?

The onus is on advocates of same sex marriage to prove that it will benefit society, not on the opponents to prove that it won’t.

1. married couples can pool resources in a way that can lead to wealth generation and we I Knox activity.
2. marriage provides a real penalty against infidelity. The rate of STD transmission is high in the gay community. Therefore marriage reduces STD rates by creating a huge fiscal penalty for infidelity.

 

[estesbob]

Is it not true, that Catholics are often ahead of the Church on social justice issues, and that the Church finds itself trying to catch up? Is this not the modern history of the Church?

No.

 

[Havard]

No.

Amen.

Further, the thing dissenting Catholics want to change isn’t even a social justice teaching. The Church already affirms the dignity of homosexual persons. That’s the social justice component. The bit people actually want to see changed is our very understanding of natural law and moral theology.

 

[phil19034]

Thank you, very much for your kind words. Aside from various gay marriage equality sites who insist all will be well, it’s not just a personal decision. It would be one thing if two men entered into such an arrangement and then lived their lives, but it’s not. Bakeries who refuse to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, religious who have been threatened for speaking what many have spoken for millennia, individuals who have been censured for speaking out against gay rights ( a woman from Canada who I heard speak on Catholic Radio with host, Al Kresta), a certain gay rights organization that writes ‘civil unions’ make gay people into second-class citizens. In other words, they need to be viewed as one to one equal to straight married couples.

Or this man who was arrested after his boy read a pro-gay marriage storybook in school. He was told it was “not a parental notification issue.”

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620

Little kids do not have the mental or emotional capacity to understand human sexuality like young adults. Who created “Diversity Days” at public schools?

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/0742520331

No one should be bullied or injured for their sexual orientation but come on. Teachers bringing their same-sex wife or husband to school. Why? And “sex education” has gone way too far. A booklet was distributed to middle-schoolers, which I can’t link to, that made gay sex sound fun and even listed places to go to.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-make-the-case-for-marriage

Having same-sex attraction is one thing, but normalizing it as marriage denies the ancient definition of marriage. Attempts to deflect with stories of adopted, abandoned or abused children seem to me to be more of the same. A same sex couple is just like a mother and father. In some cases, it’s made to sound - even better.

The Sexual Revolution was a massive social engineering experiment costing millions of dollars, and millions of marriages since the late 1960s. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association ignored years of studies and published research to vote to make what was a disorder one day, not a disorder the following day. All due to pressure from radical gay activists outside the APA and closeted gays within.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Now Transgender people have been reclassified under similar circumstances - lobbying by activists in the LGBT community. How is a disorder reclassified by lobbying? Science? Anyone?

I think ‘reclassifying’ marriage falls into the same category: lots of lobbying.

Peace,
Ed

Amen Ed! I hope to one day be able to address issues/topics like you do. Please continue doing what you do.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

Amen.

Further, the thing dissenting Catholics want to change isn’t even a social justice teaching. The Church already affirms the dignity of homosexual persons. That’s the social justice component. The bit people actually want to see changed is our very understanding of natural law and moral theology.

I agree. I would venture to guess that most Catholics who support same sex marriage also support some, most or all of the following heresies:

1. that Confession is optional
2. that Masturbation isn’t a mortal sin
3. that fornication isn’t a mortal sin
4. that nothing is wrong with co-habituation
5. that the divorced and remarried (without annulment) should be able to receive Communion
6. that missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days (without valid excuse) isn’t a mortal sin
7. voting for pro-Choice candidates is ok

Etc

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Ah ha! I just had an epiphany. Your examples (except abortion) point to issues around individuals vs society. It makes the assumption that the needs of society usually trump the individual. I just don’t think that is where the West is anymore. So the real question (outside of theology & natural law) is whether or not the needs of the society outweigh the smaller group of individuals?

We live in a society, not as a collection of anarchists passing in the streets. We live in societies because it human nature to do so, as it is human nature to form families, governments, and pass laws.

My examples point to what occurs when we attempt to veto natural law. The answer is that it harms society. It really doesn’t help the individuals either, but like the drunk having the next drink they’re too intoxicated with their stupidity to see the harm they cause themselves.

It so happens that we arrive at similar conclusions if we weigh our decisions by the maxim “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.

There was a Roman legal maxim “hard cases make bad law”.

You may recall that when abortion was being debated at the state level, before the full weight and power of a runaway power drunk Federal judiciary snatched democracy from the hands of the people and took upon themselves to dictate to hundreds of millions of people, abortion was favored for the “few hard cases”, the rape, the incest, and so on.

Millions of abortions later we know better. What we don’t know is what Dr. Sabins, Einsteins, Madame Curies, and other future worthies were aborted.

There is no societal good, no purpose in natural law, served by legalizing same sex marriage. It is a power grab by a handful of people who frankly don’t give a fig for society as a whole, they just want what they want when they want it.

.