Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[JDaniel]

Just a quick note on this for now: It would seem that lack of knowledge does not remove free will as a disposition, a latent power, but it does render it inoperative. The will cannot act without the intellect grasping objects for it to act towards.

Quite so. Everything acts towards something, or, things.

God bless,
jd

 

[mcteague]

Just a quick note on this for now: It would seem that lack of knowledge does not remove free will as a disposition, a latent power, but it does render it inoperative. The will cannot act without the intellect grasping objects for it to act towards.

I would agree that my assertion that lack of knowledge removes free will was to extreme. It does however lessen it. I was thinking more free as in free elections. Not really free with only one or two people on the ballot.
It is an interesting observation that to make arguments more precise we often need to make them less absolute. Sometimes that seems like a paradox because part of our rational mind wants scientific or mathematical certainty even in our philosophical reasoning. What I most value from my being raised as a Catholic is an exceptional acceptance and embrace of a certain amount of ambiguity in most things. When I incorrectly state things in absolutes, I am actually ignoring one of my basic philosophical premises.
So thanks for calling me on my imprecision.

 

[kenofken]

Why would Catholics object to the proposition that one could object to same sex marriage as a Catholic ceremony, but defend its inclusion as part of the secular world? In the same way that, although Catholics presumably believe that their faith is the correct one, most would defend the right of other religions to practice even if they vehemently disagreed with them. Supporting legalization of same sex marriage does not mean it has to be permitted inside the Church.
I can understand that for certain kinds of issues that separating the two is impossible for many. The abortion issue would be a good example. I would not expect Catholics to accept that its alright as long as it is not performed in Church. However gay marriage does not seem to be the kind of issue that would require supporting a particular public policy as requirement of living a Catholic life. One should be able to support its acceptance in the public sphere, but reject its inclusion as a Catholic ceremony

At the risk of coming late to this discussion and belaboring some point made pages earlier, I’ll throw in my two bucks - roughly the equivalent of the two cents when American had an economy.

The answer, my friend, is that Catholicism, Christianity in general and indeed Abrahamic faiths have NO interest in being shareholders in the public civil sphere like the rest of us. They consider themselves sole owners of the public sphere, and the rest of us live by their leave and at their sufferance. It’s not true of course, especially in this country which was designed to avoid that very thing, but 15 centuries of habit is hard to break…but we will. Law, culture and the tide of history, demographics, and time are all on our side. When it all shakes out, two or five or 15 years from now, gay people will get married in this country, churches STILL won’t have to, and a generation of us forum rats will have wasted untold billions of perfectly good ATP molecules banging away on keyboards…

 

[JDaniel]

At the risk of coming late to this discussion and belaboring some point made pages earlier, I’ll throw in my two bucks - roughly the equivalent of the two cents when American had an economy.

The answer, my friend, is that Catholicism, Christianity in general and indeed Abrahamic faiths have NO interest in being shareholders in the public civil sphere like the rest of us. They consider themselves sole owners of the public sphere, and the rest of us live by their leave and at their sufferance. It’s not true of course, especially in this country which was designed to avoid that very thing, but 15 centuries of habit is hard to break…but we will. Law, culture and the tide of history, demographics, and time are all on our side. When it all shakes out, two or five or 15 years from now, gay people will get married in this country, churches STILL won’t have to, and a generation of us forum rats will have wasted untold billions of perfectly good ATP molecules banging away on keyboards…

Kenofken:
You have presented a bunch of unfounded assertions. Everyone knows that. But, I have some questions for you:

“Why must homosexuals HIJACK marriage?” Why can’t they create another word for what they want?

God bless,
jd

P.S. Why do most gays want those vocal few to just shut up?

 

[mcteague]

I suppose that if someone down and out came to you and asked you how to use this gun, because he wished to commit suicide, you would give him all of the information he needed to place it to his temple and pull the trigger with his thumb?

Don’t be so absurd. There’s a thousand places a person can go to get information about abortion. I just drove home from breakfast and saw two billboards plastered with it!

God bless,
jd

I think the argument presupposes a condition where that information is not available. Perhaps rarely true in the real world. But we should be considering law and policy to account for this situations where it is true. This is a necessary requirement in protecting minority interests.
In the same way that public hospitals offering these services should perhaps be required to mention the possibility of other options also.

 

[JDaniel]

I think the argument presupposes a condition where that information is not available. Perhaps rarely true in the real world. But we should be considering law and policy to account for this situations where it is true. This is a necessary requirement in protecting minority interests.
In the same way that public hospitals offering these services should perhaps be required to mention the possibility of other options also.

My point is, that abortion is one of the most life-wrecking choices almost any person can make. Besides the murder of an infant, it is the potential suicide of a soul - the mom (and, possibly the dad). From a strictly secular POV, you are a little bit correct. However, there is no argument, or rationale for the dissemination of such information when the absolute totality of a religious belief system is so completely wrapped around the knowledge and acceptance that a human life begins at conception. To unravel the acceptance is to annihilate the Church.

A “right” is that which is accorded to another human being precisely because it is reciprocated. The child, at that age, cannot reciprocate. He/she is too young. But, he/she still has that right inuring in him or her for perpetuity. I still cannot believe that there are still those who do not understand this, and don’t acquiesce to its truth.

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

…However, there is no argument, or rationale for the dissemination of such information when the absolute totality of a religious belief system is so completely wrapped around the knowledge and acceptance that a human life begins at conception. To unravel the acceptance is to annihilate the Church.

Really? Why? Did the early church have any such worries?

 

[mcteague]

My point is, that abortion is one of the most life-wrecking choices almost any person can make.
jd

I think abortion is a very special and difficult case. So I agree that it would be absurd to expect a Catholic institution to present that choice on equal terms. I am really only suggesting the minimal requirement to inform people of available information sources that may include options the Catholic institution feels require to exclude.

Think in terms of birth control in general. Perhaps Catholics might feel obliged to only discuss abstenence because if their religiousl beliefs. But would it be wrong to inform people of other sources of information. Especially since, although many here would deny it, many if not most Catholics have or do practice it.
Think of it in another way, if Catholic schools received public money to teach a class in comparative religion would it be correct for that class to be exclusively about Catholicism?
Understandably difficult problems for Catholics since many consider birth control or even masturbation as bad as abortion. And it might seem teaching other religions violates their commitments to the truth of their faith

But my original point was that these requirements are not intended by the state to coerce anti Catholic activity, but only to ensure what it perceives as the fairest and most equitable distribution of medical information and access

 

[kenofken]

Kenofken:
You have presented a bunch of unfounded assertions. Everyone knows that. But, I have some questions for you:

“Why must homosexuals HIJACK marriage?” Why can’t they create another word for what they want?

God bless,
jd

P.S. Why do most gays want those vocal few to just shut up?

They did create another word for it, civil unions. But they don’t really convey the same rights as marriage, and the church and various other opponents fight tooth and nail to deny even that, so why wouldn’t they press for total victory? Would YOU be content if the law treated you as a lower caste of citizen? I don’t know that gays want people to shut up. They want their civil and human rights more than they want to be universally liked.

 

[JDaniel]

I think abortion is a very special and difficult case. So I agree that it would be absurd to expect a Catholic institution to present that choice on equal terms. I am really only suggesting the minimal requirement to inform people of available information sources that may include options the Catholic institution feels require to exclude.

I’m not sure that that isn’t already done; probably coerced by law. I will try to find out today and let you know.

Think in terms of birth control in general. Perhaps Catholics might feel obliged to only discuss abstenence because if their religiousl beliefs. But would it be wrong to inform people of other sources of information. Especially since, although many here would deny it, many if not most Catholics have or do practice it.

There are a number of older threads, especially under Religion or Apologetics, that have spent a great deal of time, and gone into great depth, on this subject. But, quickly, the Catholic marriage must be open to life. A non-marriage is the practice of sex-in-sin. That said, we hope the parties will man-up an do the right thing.

Think of it in another way, if Catholic schools received public money to teach a class in comparative religion would it be correct for that class to be exclusively about Catholicism?

That depends.

Understandably difficult problems for Catholics since many consider birth control or even masturbation as bad as abortion.

It is not so much that these are acts that are “considered bad,” it is that they thwart what God has told us, in His Revelations to us, what He wants.

And it might seem teaching other religions violates their commitments to the truth of their faith

Well, I graduated from a Catholic college. We learned a great deal about non-Catholic philosophies in our Philosophy classes. I’m not so sure that comparative religion isn’t taught in Catholic schools.

But my original point was that these requirements are not intended by the state to coerce anti Catholic activity, but only to ensure what it perceives as the fairest and most equitable distribution of medical information and access

That is where we differ in opinion. I don’t think there is any doubt that many secular entities want nothing less than the dismantling of Christianity, starting at the top, its “head,” so to speak. Else, why on earth would they stress so hard the relative few acts of actual and supposed pedophilia that occurred within the schools of our Church? If they can dismantle Catholicism, the rest will merely decay in kind. Understand this: it is not “fairness” that they want. Lucifer wants our ostensible annihilation.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

They did create another word for it, civil unions. But they don’t really convey the same rights as marriage, and the church and various other opponents fight tooth and nail to deny even that, so why wouldn’t they press for total victory? Would YOU be content if the law treated you as a lower caste of citizen? I don’t know that gays want people to shut up. They want their civil and human rights more than they want to be universally liked.

Ken:

Then it is our secular governments that should be taken to task. I am a Catholic and I don’t see any reason why gays should be mistreated by governments that belong to all of us, that we all pay taxes to.

God bless,
jd

 

[colmcille1]

Mcteague: You cannot draw a valid analogous argument between teaching comparative faith in schools and the promotion of info about abortion. Life is not subject to market forces. It is human beings we are talking about here, not brands of margarine.

Kenofken: Gays go for “total victory” because they know they do not have credibility as proponents of “civil unions”; so they just drop all pretence and show their true colours by attacking that which, from their essentially atheist stance, they see as the enemy: the Church. This is wrong thinking. Gays are children of a Loving God like anyone else. But why do they consider themselves immune to the teachings of that same loving God?

God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[JDaniel]

Mcteague: You cannot draw a valid analogous argument between teaching comparative faith in schools and the promotion of info about abortion. Life is not subject to market forces. It is human beings we are talking about here, not brands of margarine.

Kenofken: Gays go for “total victory” because they know they do not have credibility as proponents of “civil unions”; so they just drop all pretence and show their true colours by attacking that which, from their essentially atheist stance, they see as the enemy: the Church. This is wrong thinking. Gays are children of a Loving God like anyone else. But why do they consider themselves immune to the teachings of that same loving God?

God Bless,
Colmcille.

Caution, my friend. There are many gay Catholics. They merely practice celibacy. Prayerfully, they will find something, or someone, who will help them.

God bless,
jd

 

[kenofken]

Mcteague: You cannot draw a valid analogous argument between teaching comparative faith in schools and the promotion of info about abortion. Life is not subject to market forces. It is human beings we are talking about here, not brands of margarine.

Kenofken: Gays go for “total victory” because they know they do not have credibility as proponents of “civil unions”; so they just drop all pretence and show their true colours by attacking that which, from their essentially atheist stance, they see as the enemy: the Church. This is wrong thinking. Gays are children of a Loving God like anyone else. But why do they consider themselves immune to the teachings of that same loving God?

God Bless,
Colmcille.

I’ve met a lot more churchgoing gays than atheist ones. They may not hew to your own flavor of religious truth, but then neither does most of humanity. It’s not really a matter of being immune to God but immune to the enforcement of other people’s notion of God. We are not the United States of the Holy See. To the extent folks try to make it so, they do become the enemy, not only of gays but of many tens of millions of us of all walks of life, including many practicing Catholics.

 

[colmcille1]

I’ve met a lot more churchgoing gays than atheist ones. They may not hew to your own flavor of religious truth, but then neither does most of humanity. It’s not really a matter of being immune to God but immune to the enforcement of other people’s notion of God. We are not the United States of the Holy See. To the extent folks try to make it so, they do become the enemy, not only of gays but of many tens of millions of us of all walks of life, including many practicing Catholics.

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply.
I wasn’t, in fairness, aware that my “own flavour of religious truth” was an issue. But since your post indicates that it is, let me reassure you that I don’t have any axe to grind here. I am not a religion. If I’ve given you that impression, that is most unfortunate.
It’s most interesting that you are continually happy to decry “other people’s notions of God”.
Bearing that in mind, may I ask you honestly then what is it about God that the gay agenda find so loathsome?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[colmcille1]

Caution, my friend. There are many gay Catholics. They merely practice celibacy. Prayerfully, they will find something, or someone, who will help them.

God bless,
jd

Hi JDaniel,
Thank you for your post. I am fully aware of this and only two days ago I heard that a neighbour’s gay son has returned home a la the prodigal son. I pray for this man as I do for all. We are each of us broken.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JDaniel,
Thank you for your post. I am fully aware of this and only two days ago I heard that a neighbour’s gay son has returned home a la the prodigal son. I pray for this man as I do for all. We are each of us broken.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Colm: you bet!

God bless you,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply.
I wasn’t, in fairness, aware that my “own flavour of religious truth” was an issue. But since your post indicates that it is, let me reassure you that I don’t have any axe to grind here. I am not a religion. If I’ve given you that impression, that is most unfortunate.
It’s most interesting that you are continually happy to decry “other people’s notions of God”.
Bearing that in mind, may I ask you honestly then what is it about God that the gay agenda find so loathsome?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Colm:

IMHO it is the “agenda drivers” that have set that in motion. And, they are a minority, I believe. As I’ve said many times, the rest just want them to “shut up!” Ask around and you’ll discover that that is true.

It probably boils down to “sex.”

God bless,
jd

 

[colmcille1]

Colm:

IMHO it is the “agenda drivers” that have set that in motion. And, they are a minority, I believe. As I’ve said many times, the rest just want them to “shut up!” Ask around and you’ll discover that that is true.

It probably boils down to “sex.”

God bless,
jd

Hi jd,
Thank you for your post which I certainly will take on board.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Betterave]

I would agree that my assertion that lack of knowledge removes free will was to extreme. It does however lessen it. I was thinking more free as in free elections. Not really free with only one or two people on the ballot.
It is an interesting observation that to make arguments more precise we often need to make them less absolute. Sometimes that seems like a paradox because part of our rational mind wants scientific or mathematical certainty even in our philosophical reasoning. What I most value from my being raised as a Catholic is an exceptional acceptance and embrace of a certain amount of ambiguity in most things. When I incorrectly state things in absolutes, I am actually ignoring one of my basic philosophical premises.
So thanks for calling me on my imprecision.

lol! Thanks for your graciousness here, but I actually meant to support your view and correct davidv’s on this particular point.