Redefining Marriage -Jennifer Roback Morse, Phd

  • Thread starter Thread starter trickster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

trickster

Guest
In the two new videos Dr. Morse addressed two questions about redefining marriage and why we - as Catholics -are involved in the conversation.

I realize it is hard to address the issue holistically in a radio talk show format, but it seems to me that the show did not address the question of why we should be against redefining marriage.
  1. There is a traditional understanding of marriage; man and women for the procreation of children and for the good of each partner.
  2. The basic argument presented in the interview was that if we allow a redefinition of marriage we cannot prevent the loss of control over the meaning of marriage.
There has to be more to the Catholic argument than that because the two above arguments don’t hit the ball home. And again it is probably because Dr. Morse and the radio host had a very limited time to deal with the subject.

My thoughts: First, the state’s definition of marriage has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage. In Canada we have had same sex marriage legislation on the books and in practice for ten years now. All fo the gloom and doom prophecies about brothers wanting to marry, and all of the fear tactic arguements are just not appearing in Canada. I am not sure about the experiences of other countries who have legislated same sex marriage.

The institution of marriage will not weaken as it is an article of faith for us as Catholics, how will a state defined marriage affect my Catholic belief? I don’t think it will…I think I will be ok with same sex marraige and I would not heistate to support friends who choose that root just like I would support Anglican or protestant or jewish friends who get married in their tradition.

I think we can also create some catholic means of recognizing the commitment at a community level of two people of the same sex who are joined in union. I am also very supportive of gay unions.

I am wondering if the Dr. Morse could create some material that addresses the issue. At the basis is the very institution of marriage itself, how did it come about, how did it develop, how has it changed, and why does our church need to link civil and sacramental marriage so closely?

Thnaks

Bruce Ferguson
trickster
 
The redefining of marriage began with the acceptance of contraception, which severs children from sex, negating the marital meaning of conjugal relations. It’s all downhill from there.

Same sex ‘marriage’ is of course a natural impossibility, attempting a conjugal union of two non-sexually complementary persons. It is a union which can never be conjugal, never be marital, and can only be a detriment to society.

Before presenting same sex marriage as a possibility, it was first necessary to rationalize homosexual behavior. Robert R. Reilly has written a book on that subject recently: “Making Gay Okay—How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything.” An interview with the author can be found here.

Also see the two links below for further discussion of the deleterious effects of same sex ‘marriage.’

ncregister.com/site/article/15089

ncregister.com/site/article/15099
 
What social good will a redefinition of civil marriage do?
 
The OP makes the classic argument that it matters not what others do or how they think, we have our own values and can stick to them. This is naïve. Humans don’t work that way. We all influence each other at levels we barely begin to comprehend. This is why corporations spend BILLIONS on advertising every year even though each of us individually thinks we are immune to the effects of it. We aren’t. It works. It changes our behavior.

Western society once understood marriage to be the basic building block of civilization upon which our collective future depends. That building block involves the couple, but also innately includes the fact that the nature of marriage is such that it leads towards the creation of and care for children. Basic sociology supports this understanding at every level. In large samples, which kinds of children always come out ahead in virtually every category of measuring human flourishing? Children raised by their mom and dad in the same house throughout their whole childhood. This is WHY law built up so much favorable treatment for marriage over the centuries. This is GOOD and we wanted to encourage and reward it.

Somehow, we lost our collective minds between about 1930 and 1965 and decided that marriage was almost exclusively about the feelings between two people. As if there would ever be tax and legal breaks passed for that!

Catholicism understands that sexual intimacy, marriage and babies are one interdependent sexual ecosystem, not an ala carte menu of choices. Each time people try to practice unhealthy forms of human sexuality, the damage is NOT limited to that person but radiates outward to the people they come into contact with. So the use of the state to formally endorse an unhealthy union of two people and to use a word for it that is supposed to mean so much more damages the fabric of society, not just the individuals who engage in it.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
👍

Ed, I think that link should automatically be posted on every new thread that brings up the subject of homosexual unions.Then posters could refer to it and we would not have misinterpretations about the Church’s position.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I agree. It’s too easy to focus on what the media tells us, and that appears to be what confuses people.

God bless,
Ed
 
manualman said:
The OP makes the classic argument that it matters not what others do or how they think, we have our own values and can stick to them. This is naïve. Humans don’t work that way. We all influence each other at levels we barely begin to comprehend. This is why corporations spend BILLIONS on advertising every year even though each of us individually thinks we are immune to the effects of it. We aren’t. It works. It changes our behavior.

Western society once understood marriage to be the basic building block of civilization upon which our collective future depends. That building block involves the couple, but also innately includes the fact that the nature of marriage is such that it leads towards the creation of and care for children. Basic sociology supports this understanding at every level. In large samples, which kinds of children always come out ahead in virtually every category of measuring human flourishing? Children raised by their mom and dad in the same house throughout their whole childhood. This is WHY law built up so much favorable treatment for marriage over the centuries. This is GOOD and we wanted to encourage and reward it.

Somehow, we lost our collective minds between about 1930 and 1965 and decided that marriage was almost exclusively about the feelings between two people. As if there would ever be tax and legal breaks passed for that!

Catholicism understands that sexual intimacy, marriage and babies are one interdependent sexual ecosystem, not an ala carte menu of choices. Each time people try to practice unhealthy forms of human sexuality, the damage is NOT limited to that person but radiates outward to the people they come into contact with. So the use of the state to formally endorse an unhealthy union of two people and to use a word for it that is supposed to mean so much more damages the fabric of society, not just the individuals who engage in it.
Click to expand...
It denies reality as it is, which is explained well here:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3160/why_is_gay_not_okay.aspx

It is not logical to invent reality. It shows us to what end human actions are proper to our obvious nature as male and female.

Peace,
Ed
 
manualman said:
The OP makes the classic argument that it matters not what others do or how they think, we have our own values and can stick to them. This is naïve. Humans don’t work that way. We all influence each other at levels we barely begin to comprehend. This is why corporations spend BILLIONS on advertising every year even though each of us individually thinks we are immune to the effects of it. We aren’t. It works. It changes our behavior.

Western society once understood marriage to be the basic building block of civilization upon which our collective future depends. That building block involves the couple, but also innately includes the fact that the nature of marriage is such that it leads towards the creation of and care for children. Basic sociology supports this understanding at every level. In large samples, which kinds of children always come out ahead in virtually every category of measuring human flourishing? Children raised by their mom and dad in the same house throughout their whole childhood. This is WHY law built up so much favorable treatment for marriage over the centuries. This is GOOD and we wanted to encourage and reward it.

Somehow, we lost our collective minds between about 1930 and 1965 and decided that marriage was almost exclusively about the feelings between two people. As if there would ever be tax and legal breaks passed for that!

Catholicism understands that sexual intimacy, marriage and babies are one interdependent sexual ecosystem, not an ala carte menu of choices. Each time people try to practice unhealthy forms of human sexuality, the damage is NOT limited to that person but radiates outward to the people they come into contact with. So the use of the state to formally endorse an unhealthy union of two people and to use a word for it that is supposed to mean so much more damages the fabric of society, not just the individuals who engage in it.
Click to expand...
During that time period, there were rules about dating and public behavior that worked. You asked her father for her hand in marriage. In return, having been your age once, he asked all the practical questions. Where will you live? How will you support yourselves? Do you have reliable transportation? And families did not detach themselves from mom and dad, and you had aunts and uncles on both sides and had kids and worked and had good times and bad.

Around 1965, groups began to form to destroy all that. It did not happen overnight. Not everybody lost their minds, but people were deceived by those who wanted to destroy the family because sex was more important than families or kids.

They sold us corruption but told us it meant freedom. That was a lie.

amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599

It took decades of their hard work to gradually convince people to act worse and worse. Today is Better? No - not by a long shot. And let’s not forget TV and movies starting to get bad starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s, And worse in the 1980s. And even worse in the 1990s. The media was showing us actors portraying immoral and wrong behavior which IS a form of advertising.

Peace,
Ed
 
The reason why marriage can only be between one man and one woman is because that is the way God designed it. It is revealed truth.

We can discuss many things about marriage such as our understanding and how it has changed or the societal benefits, but marriage as the indisoluble union of one man and one woman is a truth revealed to us by God. We can’t get around that fact. We also cannot get around that fact that active homosexual unions are a sin. It is not a sin for heterosexual Protestants or Jews to get married and have sex. It is a sin for homosexuals to to so.

We cannot support sin. If you support gay marriage then you support sin. If you are in favor of gay marriage then you are in favor of people going to Hell.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top