Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[Betterave]

This presents an interesting ethical dilemma
Your obligation is actually to promote what we may call Christian thinking and behavior. If you believe in the Catholic God then you believe he gave man free will, and that righteous conduct was not imposed. Yet, free will can not exist in the absence of knowledge. So when, for example in the case of birth control, you keep information from someone; it denies them the actuality of free will. You are in essence placing yourself above God. For God does not deny the liberty off our personal consciousness.
It seems the proper Christian action is to provide all information and then advocate for the actions and positions you believe to be most virtuous.

So what you are saying here is that the serpent’s act of tempting Eve was morally praiseworthy. The principle you are implying is that if I can present someone with an occasion of sin, I should do so, since this gives that person more freedom. Right?

This view betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Christian notion of freedom. Promoting structures of sin stirs up our disordered desires and reduces our authentic freedom, which is only found in the cultivation of virtue. Cultivation of vice is destructive of true freedom.

p.s. MarkAnthony: that is one reason why they “don’t have a right”. The more general reason is that the purpose of government is to promote the common good, not to promote structures of sin or indifference towards it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

p.s. MarkAnthony: that is one reason why they “don’t have a right”. The more general reason is that the purpose of government is to promote the common good, not to promote structures of sin or indifference towards it.

Well if that’s the case, condoms should be made illegal. By not making them ilegal, the government is promoting indifference to an objectively evil act.

 

[mcteague]

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

In any important social movement where people struggle for liberty, whether it be blacks in the 1960s or 1800s, Americans in the 17th century, or Christians in 2nd century, there is alway a majority that says “be quite. Don’t makes trouble”, and then there are those who stand and say no.
Would you have been one of those Christians in Rome who simply acknowledged the official religion to avoid death? According to Gibbon that was all that was needed to avoid execution. I believe the religious conviction I have heard from many here is real, and they would stand up for the principles of their faith. Is it so hard to see that others struggle for the same things because it is what their hearts command them

 

[JDaniel]

Well if that’s the case, condoms should be made illegal. By not making them ilegal, the government is promoting indifference to an objectively evil act.

Marc, ask yourself what is a “right?” Don’t jump to an answer . . . . . . . . . . . Is this a possibility:

A “right” is that which is accorded from one person, or persons, to another person, or persons, precisely because it is reciprocated.

Governments only have rights because other governments reciprocate. As subjects of a government, it has no rights over us. It has authority and it has power, but not rights. Notice that in my definition, above, the parties are existentially equal.

That is why animals can’t have “right,” per se. Animals can’t, and mostly don’t, reciprocate.

If I own a body of water on my property and I give you the right to drink from it, you have the right. In turn, you may have grain that I can feed to my livestock. If I remove that ability, and, thus, the right, from you . . . you no longer have that right. If you take my water you break the law.

Now, we can give certain rights to our government, in exchange for rights it gives to us, but, except for the United States, most countries do not endow their citizens with “rights.” They endow them with “permissions,” or, not.

God bless,
jd

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc, ask yourself what is a “right?” Don’t jump to an answer . . . . . . . . . . . Is this a possibility:

A “right” is that which is accorded from one person, or persons, to another person, or persons, precisely because it is reciprocated.

Governments only have rights because other governments reciprocate. As subjects of a government, it has no rights over us. It has authority and it has power, but not rights. Notice that in my definition, above, the parties are existentially equal.

That is why animals can’t have “right,” per se. Animals can’t, and mostly don’t, reciprocate.

If I own a body of water on my property and I give you the right to drink from it, you have the right. In turn, you may have grain that I can feed to my livestock. If I remove that ability, and, thus, the right, from you . . . you no longer have that right. If you take my water you break the law.

Now, we can give certain rights to our government, in exchange for rights it gives to us, but, except for the United States, most countries do not endow their citizens with “rights.” They endow them with “permissions,” or, not.

God bless,
jd

Why is gay marriage not a right but condom use IS if both are objectively evil?

Shall we say, in the United States.

 

[JDaniel]

In any important social movement where people struggle for liberty, whether it be blacks in the 1960s or 1800s, Americans in the 17th century, or Christians in 2nd century, there is alway a majority that says “be quite. Don’t makes trouble”, and then there are those who stand and say no.
Would you have been one of those Christians in Rome who simply acknowledged the official religion to avoid death? According to Gibbon that was all that was needed to avoid execution. I believe the religious conviction I have heard from many here is real, and they would stand up for the principles of their faith. Is it so hard to see that others struggle for the same things because it is what their hearts command them

McTeague, I hate to say it, but, that’s apples and oranges. Gays have, from everything I can gather, all of the rights heterosexuals have. If there are one or two missing, then get them added. It is unnecessary to overturn the “institution” of marriage. There were some that were missing but, in my opinion, those were due to rotten apple politicians, who played with the laws and fairness when they should not have.

Furthermore, there may be sufficient reasons why certain abilities might not be given to homosexuals, just as there are certain abilities not given to pilots, by insurance companies. That’s life.

God bless,
jd

 

[kenofken]

Why is gay marriage not a right but condom use IS if both are objectively evil?

Shall we say, in the United States.

Because many conservative Christians harbor a special contempt for homosexuals and like to dress it up in theological language. They also don’t want to bring government power down too hard on any perogative to sin that might affect THEM. (I.E. they seem to have very little interest in outlawing divorce, despite the fact that it usually leads people into mortal sin). Funny, considering I distinctly remember reading Christ’s words to the effect that marriage is inviolable for life. He spoke how many times about homosexuality?..wait, give me a minute, I’m sure it’s in here somewhere…

If Christian/Catholic virtue really was their bottom line, they’d be fighting just as hard over this, and to ban IVF, and to deny marriage to hetero couples who actively obstruct God’s will by employing artificial birth control or sterilization. They try to get around this glaring hypocrisy by suggesting that yeah, all this stuff is bad, but homosexuality, well that’s really super uber bad. It’s “triple secret probation” mortal sin, not like the regular kind, and it’s not just our personal disgust of gays. Really.

 

[JDaniel]

Why is gay marriage not a right but condom use IS if both are objectively evil?

Shall we say, in the United States.

Marc:

The government has usurped the authority of the Church in matters concerning Marriage. The State can do as it wants, whether the majority of us agree or disagree - as we have seen in the past year!

Until fairly recently, marriage between a male and a female was not a “right” either. In fact, the pair had to undergo blood testing in order to obtain a license to marry! Now, the government here has loosened up on those restrictions, but, not completely.

Condom use is not a “right,” per se, it simply is an unrestricted freedom, in our society. It is not conferred on us in any way, by the government. It just is. There is no “reciprocity” whatsoever. But, that said, it is restricted if one or both parties to its use are under the age in intellectual consent.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Because many conservative Christians harbor a special contempt for homosexuals and like to dress it up in theological language. They also don’t want to bring government power down too hard on any perogative to sin that might affect THEM. (I.E. they seem to have very little interest in outlawing divorce, despite the fact that it usually leads people into mortal sin). Funny, considering I distinctly remember reading Christ’s words to the effect that marriage is inviolable for life. He spoke how many times about homosexuality?..wait, give me a minute, I’m sure it’s in here somewhere…

If Christian/Catholic virtue really was their bottom line, they’d be fighting just as hard over this, and to ban IVF, and to deny marriage to hetero couples who actively obstruct God’s will by employing artificial birth control or sterilization. They try to get around this glaring hypocrisy by suggesting that yeah, all this stuff is bad, but homosexuality, well that’s really super uber bad. It’s “triple secret probation” mortal sin, not like the regular kind, and it’s not just our personal disgust of gays. Really.

Ken, stop being so childish and absurd. Please. Or, go to your room right now!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Because many conservative Christians harbor a special contempt for homosexuals and like to dress it up in theological language. They also don’t want to bring government power down too hard on any perogative to sin that might affect THEM. (I.E. they seem to have very little interest in outlawing divorce, despite the fact that it usually leads people into mortal sin). Funny, considering I distinctly remember reading Christ’s words to the effect that marriage is inviolable for life. He spoke how many times about homosexuality?..wait, give me a minute, I’m sure it’s in here somewhere…

If Christian/Catholic virtue really was their bottom line, they’d be fighting just as hard over this, and to ban IVF, and to deny marriage to hetero couples who actively obstruct God’s will by employing artificial birth control or sterilization. They try to get around this glaring hypocrisy by suggesting that yeah, all this stuff is bad, but homosexuality, well that’s really super uber bad. It’s “triple secret probation” mortal sin, not like the regular kind, and it’s not just our personal disgust of gays. Really.

Ken, you know I am sort of kidding, right? I love discussing these things with younger people. It shows that you are intelligent and, what’s more, “thinking!” Please don’t go away; keep 'em coming.

God bless,
jd

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc:

The government has usurped the authority of the Church in matters concerning Marriage. The State can do as it wants, whether the majority of us agree or disagree - as we have seen in the past year!

Until fairly recently, marriage between a male and a female was not a “right” either. In fact, the pair had to undergo blood testing in order to obtain a license to marry! Now, the government here has loosened up on those restrictions, but, not completely.

Condom use is not a “right,” per se, it simply is an unrestricted freedom, in our society. It is not conferred on us in any way, by the government. It just is. There is no “reciprocity” whatsoever. But, that said, it is restricted if one or both parties to its use are under the age in intellectual consent.

God bless,
jd

That’s a decent answer.

Here’s another question though.

Why must society be forced to accept the Church’s definition of marriage? Sure WE know it’s the true definition, but on the other hand people have free will and if they believe something else wy should we force them to believe what we do about marriage?

 

[JDaniel]

That’s a decent answer.

Here’s another question though.

Why must society be forced to accept the Church’s definition of marriage? Sure WE know it’s the true definition, but on the other hand people have free will and if they believe something else why should we force them to believe what we do about marriage?

Good questions, Marco. I guess it has to do with bearing children. But also, the government cannot be “forced” to do anything by the Church. Sure, we can vote the bums! out of office. But, that’s about it. As you no doubt recall, Catholics did not stick together in the last presidential election. Catholics put President Obama over the top, numbers-wise. Even though he was an avowed anti-life proponent.

This country is a country of “minorities.” That means, to the best of its abilities, the government should try to accede to the demands of its citizens whenever it can. Now, the Catholic Church is no doubt the largest minority here, but, it seems that the Federal government is trying to cut us down to size. Why? Your guesses are as good as mine.

God bless,
jd

 

[kenofken]

Ken, stop being so childish and absurd. Please. Or, go to your room right now!

God bless,
jd

No worries. I did in fact go to my room for a time. It didn’t help. I’m still absurd and a little childish. They’re the only things that keep me from hurtling toward the nursing home too quickly or having a scary bad mid-life crisis like Mel Gibson.In the guise of a trickster and village fool, I carry some dead serious points in my diatribes. Consider them as you will

 

[larkin31]

Ken, stop being so childish and absurd. Please. Or, go to your room right now!

God bless,
jd

Actually, his points were right on.

Shall we look to see how many threads here are about trying to reverse legal divorce on the grounds that God does not acknowledge the legitimacy of divorce and deems it a sin?

Or outlawing work on Sundays.

Or outlawing adultery.

 

[rossum]

Actually, his points were right on.

Shall we look to see how many threads here are about trying to reverse legal divorce on the grounds that God does not acknowledge the legitimacy of divorce and deems it a sin?

Or outlawing work on Sundays.

Or outlawing adultery.

Or outlawing cotton-polyester shirts, which are a much worse crime. (Leviticus 19:19 if you are interested.)

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

No worries. I did in fact go to my room for a time. It didn’t help. I’m still absurd and a little childish. They’re the only things that keep me from hurtling toward the nursing home too quickly or having a scary bad mid-life crisis like Mel Gibson.In the guise of a trickster and village fool, I carry some dead serious points in my diatribes. Consider them as you will

What a shame. Mel’s going through some really bad melt-downs. Hooks up with a beautiful, younger woman and bam. Looses control. I guess that happens more times that we’d like to count. By the way, I virtually live in my room, so coming here is not any sort of punishment. In fact, they don’t say “go to” your whatever to me, they say, “stay in” your whatever!

God bless,
jd

 

[colmcille1]

What a shame. Mel’s going through some really bad melt-downs. Hooks up with a beautiful, younger woman and bam. Looses control. I guess that happens more times that we’d like to count. By the way,** I virtually live in my room,** so coming here is not any sort of punishment. In fact, they don’t say “go to” your whatever to me, they say, “stay in” your whatever!

God bless,
jd

Hi jd,
As an adjunct to your domestic set-up, would it not be true to say that we all live in our virtual rooms?!
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[JDaniel]

Actually, his points were right on.

Shall we look to see how many threads here are about trying to reverse legal divorce on the grounds that God does not acknowledge the legitimacy of divorce and deems it a sin?

What is the cause of this, do you think? Religion? Be honest. with yourself. 50% divorce rate. disgusting. But, the legal system, which is generally not made up of particularly religious people, in my opinion, controls that. We don’t. So, what do we do?

Or outlawing work on Sundays.

Or outlawing adultery.

You are still pointing to exigencies the religious have little, or no, control over. We stamp our feet and jump up and down. Nobody listens and nobody cares. Would that it were different!

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

What is the cause of this, do you think? Religion? Be honest. with yourself. 50% divorce rate. disgusting. But, the legal system, which is generally not made up of particularly religious people, in my opinion, controls that. We don’t. So, what do we do?

You are still pointing to exigencies the religious have little, or no, control over. We stamp our feet and jump up and down. Nobody listens and nobody cares. Would that it were different!

God bless,
jd

this is excuse-making. You have just as much influence over these as you do over gay marriage. You could certainly have just as much talk here at CA about them as there is about gay marriage.

But nope.

 

[nguirado]

Have you ever noticed how those who most support marriage are the same people who hold it in least esteem? Ask a SSM supporter if it’s immoral or wrong for people to live together before marriage, if it’s best for kids to have two parents, or if marriage is best for society.

What would they answer? What would they have answered 15 years ago when nobody thought about SSM? What do the places with the least marriage think about SSM (Scandinavia, etc.)? How does SSM marriage affect marriage rates in those places?

This is a trick, people. There’s no reason we need SSM unless the goal is to diminish marriage (people automatically don’t respect worthless things which marriage as nothing more than really strong feelings at one point would be) and there are no good non-emotional arguments for SSM unless, again, it’s to deal a death blow to society organized around a nuclear family.

Don’t believe me? Notice how all of the arguments for have to do with (non-existent) “rights” and how it won’t affect society or people’s marriage, too much. Again, just stand firm and this fad will pass.