P
PaulinVA
Guest
It only doesn’t mean much to those who find it a problem.
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Rejecting one or more of the teachings of the Church is heresy!
CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
E
estesbob
Guest
Homosexuals already had the right to non-religious marriages in California-it was called civil unions and gave same sex partners all the rights accorded by a civil marriage. Very few homosexuals availed themselves of it just as very few will avail themselves of the right to “marry” They want the right to “marry” under the mistaken belief that that legitmizes their sinful behavior.
Only if one buys into the absurd poposition that we are defined only by the manner in which we engage in sex. If we follow that logic we would see NAMBLA going to court whining that non -pediophilics are making law concenring pediophilia
It has-homosexual “marriage” has been roundly rejected everytime it is put to a vote. How you can say that translates into a large portion of the population having no problem with homosexaul marriage is beyond me. So far homosexual “marriage” in this country was imposed by a grand total of 8 people.
The law in Texas outlawed sodomy regadless of whether is was engaged in by memebers of the opposite sex or members of the same sex.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Show me on this thread where someone has answered the question of what to do with the next fringe group that wants to redefine marriage.Actually, I believe at least one person on the “other side” has answered that query.
If the answer is you don’t do anything, then how do you defend *your *group can redefine, but the next can’t.
You can’t use the argument the will of the people, because the homosexual marriage, when put to a vote, loses everytime, but you still want to redefine.
Like Bob said, 8 people in 2 states rewrote law, and shoved it down the throat of the folks.
Surpeme Court of Alabama is voted on by the folks (thankfully) if they wrote law from the bench, they wouldn’t be there long.
E
Exalt
Guest
I already answered it. Polygamy laws need to be looked at. Our opposition to it is primarily ideological and causes more harm than good (see: polygamist families being so afraid of government that they become isolated from the world, making it more difficult for abuse to be spotted).
You said something about 14 year olds getting married. I said that in the past, they have been. (Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was married at that age.) Now, I don’t think that’s a good idea, of course, but not because it violates the definition of marriage. Something called adolescence has developed since 3 B.C.E. and today, and 14 year olds are just at the beginning of it. They might have had sufficient maturity to handle marriage at that time, but they surely don’t now. That, and marriage itself is very different today.
Which brings me to another point: Marriage has *already *changed. It’s *already *been re-defined in America. Marriage used to be used as a tool to forge political alliances. Marriage used to be arranged. Both of those uses of marriage is very much frowned upon in America today and we’ve agreed that it ought to be a free choice made out of love.
The real question, then, is this: can homosexuals include themselves in that group? Let’s get our heads out of ideology and dogma and into common sense and understanding for a while.
E
Exalt
Guest
Actually this has nothing to do with you. No one is shoving anything down your throat.
B
BamaRider
Guest
I was referring to the people of Calif that voted to quash same sex marriage in a valid election, only to have it shoved aside by the court.
What would YOU call that?
The fact you can no longer marry a 14 year old did not redefine marriage.
Now this is a loooooooong strecth, no matter what reasons ANYBODY married, it was a MAN and a WOMAN.
No, unless you rewrite the law, or find a rogue court.
You wanna make same sex marriage, and polygamy legal in this country, I’ll let that premise stand for what it is. Like I say, at least your’e honest, and I respect that, might not agree with it, but at least you say it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Really? Where in the US have the people voted in favor of homosexual marriage?
The whole issue is a matter of people who engage in sodomy wanting sodomy raised to the same level of protection as race, creed, gender and country of national origin.It is a patenety racist propostion and greatly demeans the struggles of the African American Community. If the people want to vote raise sodomy to that level that is their choice but the idea that millions are required to accept this based on the opinion of a sum total of 8 people is specious
P
Pong
Guest
BamaRider- You said:
I responded to that exact question on page 3.
C
Contarini
Guest
Natural Law never meant simply observing what animals do. That is a preposterous claim. At no time before the eighteenth century could it have meant what it sounds like today, because the concept of “nature” changed radically in the course of that century (or rather a bunch of different understandings emerged). I recommend Basil Willey’s excellent book *The Eighteenth Century Background, *which focuses on the various understandings of nature.
Edwin
B
BamaRider
Guest
A while ago I asked this question, because I’m kinda old and couldn’t remember anyone answering it-
So Pong did some checking and found this post back on page 3, post #11
Ok, so add Pong to the list of folks that think polygamy should be made legal.I draw the line at consenting adults. I don’t really care is 4 men and 9 women want to think of themselves as “married” and have some sort of legal recognition that says so. It really doesn’t affect me. The Church’s laws and the government’s are not the same thing I and would never want them to be. Before somebody starts once again down that icy mountainside, people and pets together are out.The bottom line, for me anyway, is that what people choose to do as far as how and with whom they spend their life is not my concern; my concern is a government who takes it uppon itself to regulate the self-regarding vices.
E
Exalt
Guest
Sodomy used to be illegal. People used to be chemically castrated for it. People used to go to jail, and not that long ago at all. Hate crimes against homosexuals happens at the same rate as hate crimes for religious reasons. That’s according to an FBI report a few years ago. That’s pretty huge. Gay people are people too, and no one is forcing you to think that what they do is right or wrong.
That being said, no one is forcing you to do anything.
E
Exalt
Guest
Why shouldn’t it?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Natural law” means different things in different systems of thought. I do not doubt that many, if not most, people think of it in terms of what on observes in the non-human world. In the Catholic view “Natural Law” is that imperative of man and all creatures to proceed to their proper “ends” or culminations. For a frog, that’s to eat flies, swim, provide food for the occasional crane and to produce other frogs. For a rock, it’s to sit still and, ultimately be turned into rock dust or be subducted again into the earth’s mantle. For a human being it’s to follow that course which results in union with God.
That has been the Catholic view of “Natural Law” for an immensely long time.
B
BamaRider
Guest
In regards to making polygamy legal Exalt asked this-
Ok so Tom is legally married to Alice and Jane. He brings in Joy, and the other 2 ain’t gonna go for it and sue for divorce. Ok, now who is gonna get what? As if settling agreements between a couple is not hard enough, now ya got 3 to deal with. A legal nightmare.
Joy is married to Mike and Sam, they make babies, whose name does she put on the birth certificate as the father? DNA test? How ya gonna make them go along with it? Or ya just gonna ask nicely for samples from everyone and hope they’re cooperative. Or do ya now wanna pass a law making such tests mandatory? Do that, and libs will jump and down you’re invading a individual’s privacy and they’d be right, but I don’t know how else you settle who the daddy is. And those tests are NOT cheap.
The low tech way would just be throw darts.
But more then all that, your society loses something. We went through this line of thinking with single women having babies with 2-3 different men. In the places that has become acceptable there has been a total breakdown of society and family. It has been a disaster. The odds are stacked high against the kids of such homes.
Lets toss out the religious reasons and just focus on the legal.
Ok so Tom is legally married to Alice and Jane. He brings in Joy, and the other 2 ain’t gonna go for it and sue for divorce. Ok, now who is gonna get what? As if settling agreements between a couple is not hard enough, now ya got 3 to deal with. A legal nightmare.
Joy is married to Mike and Sam, they make babies, whose name does she put on the birth certificate as the father? DNA test? How ya gonna make them go along with it? Or ya just gonna ask nicely for samples from everyone and hope they’re cooperative. Or do ya now wanna pass a law making such tests mandatory? Do that, and libs will jump and down you’re invading a individual’s privacy and they’d be right, but I don’t know how else you settle who the daddy is. And those tests are NOT cheap.
The low tech way would just be throw darts.
But more then all that, your society loses something. We went through this line of thinking with single women having babies with 2-3 different men. In the places that has become acceptable there has been a total breakdown of society and family. It has been a disaster. The odds are stacked high against the kids of such homes.
P
Paladin99
Guest
Augustine
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious” (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).
Novatian
“[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women” (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).
“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).
Arnobius
“[T]he mother of the gods loved [the boy Attis] exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis [the son of Jupiter] who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust. . . . Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he [Attis] admits that he is . . . loved by Acdestis. . . . Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage. . . . Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boy’s being torn from himself and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness; the Phrygians shriek, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods. . . . [Attis] too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, ‘Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotions’” (Against the Pagans 5:6–7 [A.D. 305]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious” (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).
Novatian
“[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women” (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).
“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).
Arnobius
“[T]he mother of the gods loved [the boy Attis] exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis [the son of Jupiter] who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust. . . . Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he [Attis] admits that he is . . . loved by Acdestis. . . . Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage. . . . Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boy’s being torn from himself and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness; the Phrygians shriek, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods. . . . [Attis] too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, ‘Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotions’” (Against the Pagans 5:6–7 [A.D. 305]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
P
Paladin99
Guest
Isn’t it true that once you homosexual men are in a marriage, that you will sleep with an average of 8 men per year in addition, not just your so-called husband? You don’t know what monogamy really means and you would like to redefine it, wouldn’t you? If there are others, that’s ok, as long as there are no attachments - Isn’t that right?
Paladin
Paladin
M
MIZER
Guest
HI Pong,
I thought I would answer your question. The sorrow is not expressed for one’s opinion but rather for the offense it is sure to cause. When I was young I used to think apolgetics was a way of saying to non-Catholic christians, “sorry, but you’re wrong.” In a sense, that is what apolgetics is. In defending our faith we don’t wish to cause upset but the truth can hurt and upset is a by-product. That’s what we’re sorry for.
“Sorry but…” is a politically correct way to upset people with our own belief, opinion, or an objective truth the hearer does not wish to be faced with.
P
Pong
Guest
Isn’t it true that 54% of all statistics quoted in conversations are made up on the spot?
Mizer- Thank you for your explanation. I am a firm believer in stating one’s opinion freely, with charity. “Sorry, but” still seems to me a copout. That’s why I put it in my signature line.
M
myndsplyntur
Guest
OMG YOU’RE RIGHT!! Because, ya know, homosexuals (er, specifically homosexual MEN) are the ONLY people in this world that are not faithful to their partners.
And LOL @ your made up statistics.
- Status