Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? - Presentation

[Elizabeth502]

Remember Jesus drank with the Samaritan…
Jesus’ point in doing this was that he wanted us to view everyone as children of God and not treat others different.

Sorry. Not even close.

The point, or points, plural, of this passage is to highlight an encounter in which a non-Jew recognizes the extraordinary identity of this man, an acknowledgement which furthers the gospel narrative, affirming Jesus as the Messiah and sharing a lineage with the Jewish prophets, but surpassing them in the level of his direct insight. Remember that to prophesy, in OT times, did not mean only to foretell; it meant more accurately to interpret human events in divine context, and to represent in the person of the prophet the purity and integrity of the Mosaic Law. The extension of the Messiah’s authority beyond Israel is an important theme in John. This episode highlights that fact.

Thirdly, the passage, appearing as it does in the gospel of the most spiritually expressive of all the evangelists, reinforces the persistent themes in this Gospel of personal encounter with Jesus as essential for Christian identity: an encounter in this case which emphasizes the Wisdom and Knowlege of the Logos as John describes Jesus at the outset; clearly Jesus knows the woman with a profound, intimate, direct knowledge at which she marvels aloud, thus again emphasizing Jesus’ divinity for the sake of the Gospel hearers (and us, the readers).

Fourthly, the divinity of Jesus is reinforced by the simultaneous knowledge (of her sin) and transforming mercy, by which her own acknowledgement of her sin is her path to healing. (Jesus as merciful Judge in the way that only divinity can provide mercy and judgment simultaneously.)

Fifthly, the motif of Jesus as the Living Water, sustaining her, is a central element of Johannine theology.

Leave it to God, not humans.

Jesus left it to his Apostles to continue reinforcing the boundaries of moral law when he gave them that authority and that mission. And the Pope inherits that command of Jesus through apostolic succession. Those moral boundaries include the prohibiitions against homosexuality that were operative in Jesus’ time, as Jesus was a faithful follower of the Jewish moral law.

 

[SwissGuard25]

However, I don’t understand why you brought up the verse and lessons thereof. The OP is on same sex marriage, with the last posts discussing a pamphlet promoting traditional marriage and traditional parenting/adoption. Has anybody justified or proposed ill treatment of those with homosexual orientation? I would not wish this on an individual or individuals of any sexual orientation, including a close family member, a sibling, who happens to be same sex attracted.
,

Yah it’s kinda hard to understand they way I put it.
As you probably know the Jews were not allowed to be involved with anything to do with the Samaritan. Jesus, well at least I think this, when he drank with the Samaritan decided even though the Samaritans didn’t follow God they. They were Pagans. Jesus still drank with her I think it meant treat others equally because were all God’s children, and let God decide.
However I don’t know if they should be allowed to adopt from Catholic orphanages.
If the orphanage is Catholic then they’re going to send the child to a Catholic Family.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Constructive criticism? What you demonstrated was a badmouthing exercise. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion on each of the positions on the pamphlet with which you disagree although the positions are actually consistent with Catholic teaching. If you are disappointed as you say you are, you can direct a letter with a civil tone to the Institute or Dr. Morse. I suggest you use a different method of attack and choice of vocabulary.

I thought it was fair. I had about the same reaction when reading the 77 points. Anyone looking at them calmly and rationally would have to conclude that the list is mostly comprised of points that are exaggerated, irrelevant, unsupported by research, and/or borderline deceptive.

I thought the M31Y had a great deal of restraint for not claiming that such a deficient list, coming from an allegedly intelligent person, is evidence of ulterior motives. I don’t think it would even be too much of a stretch to claim that the OP’s presenter and her institute are not trying to change the minds of gay marriage supporters or the undecided, but rather to scare people who are afraid of gay marriage into giving money. That sort of claim might be an example of an ad hominem, depending on how it was phrased.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I think we need to re-evaluate what’s really at stake.

Same-sex marriage has been legalized in the last 10 years in 5 states. No-fault divorce has been legal for decades and we Catholics do it at about the same rate as everyone else.

Imbalance, no?

I think heterosexuals have done enough to screw up society themselves without homosexuals ‘pushing their immoral values on all of us’. Playing the blame game is really just childish at this point.

And scare tactics? All I hear about when people try to make you think that SSM is a bad idea is that there will be a complete immoral upheaval in this country. I’m sorry, I can’t take any argument seriously that says if we allow x, y WILL happen because of z. There’s no evidence…OH WAIT! There’s the evidence of so many heterosexual ‘marriages’ that amount to nothing but shams. I seriously have to wonder why no one blinks an eye when saying this.

It’s amazing to me how people react (or rather fail to react) to the Kim Kardashian divorce fiasco. Are people so desensitized to two people making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage but are up in arms, so much so that they create organizations for the professed purpose of nipping SSM in the bud? I’m not for SSM, by the way, I’m just trying to figure out which motives are at play here. People tend to give a lot of leeway to those who sin in ways that they could potentially sin or maybe even have sinned. When you (probably) don’t know (let alone love deeply or care about) any gay people and the matter of homosexuality or SSM is just some concept to attach recycled talking points to, it’s so easy to see the sordidness of it all, isn’t it? Much of the ammunition gay rights activists and supporters use specifically targets an apparent overwhelming heterosexual ineptitude to do anything right in the first place when it comes to marriage. Many homosexuals themselves, as some are so quick to point out, come from marriages that just simply weren’t that great, a broken marriage, or a failure to marry in the first place. It reminds me of the other thread in this subforum that concerns Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. The irony at the heart of this work of satire is that while Swift uses numerical and rational means to make his argument for why the plethora of impoverished Irish babies should be eaten, when, and how, the truth is that eating babies is 100% wrong. While there are a lot of good arguments for why legalizing SSM nationwide is 1) fair and 2) within the means of reason (theology and morals aside), when you put the theology and morals into the picture, SSM is just wrong. Why does one need to create 77 lines of straw to make a man and then burn it to convince someone that SSM is wrong? SSM in this country is struggling to survive on the vine if you look at what has ACTUALLY been put in place and people have been fighting this long before it was even legal in one state of the union. There has been, however, nonsense going on from our brothers and sisters tying the knot and then burning it for decades. Why can’t we stop trying to play good guys hunting down bad guys and realize that we’re all in a huge problem together and do something that helps everyone, not just demonizes one subset of people? That’s what irks me about this.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I thought it was fair. I had about the same reaction when reading the 77 points. Anyone looking at them calmly and rationally would have to conclude that the list is mostly comprised of points that are exaggerated, irrelevant, unsupported by research, and/or borderline deceptive.

I thought the M31Y had a great deal of restraint for not claiming that such a deficient list, coming from an allegedly intelligent person, is evidence of ulterior motives. I don’t think it would even be too much of a stretch to claim that the OP’s presenter and her institute are not trying to change the minds of gay marriage supporters or the undecided, but rather to scare people who are afraid of gay marriage into giving money. That sort of claim might be an example of an ad hominem, depending on how it was phrased.

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

Right on the money. There’s absolutely no balance when it comes to the people who lead these groups. It’s all about ‘us’ and ‘them’. There’s little to no concern, care, love, or even logic behind what they say. As I’ve said before, I don’t support SSM, but if I weren’t a faithful Catholic who espoused faith and morals, I would very likely not have a reason to not support it with things like this ‘77 list’ flying around.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think we need to re-evaluate what’s really at stake.

Same-sex marriage has been legalized in the last 10 years in 5 states. No-fault divorce has been legal for decades and we Catholics do it at about the same rate as everyone else.

Imbalance, no?

I think heterosexuals have done enough to screw up society themselves without homosexuals ‘pushing their immoral values on all of us’. Playing the blame game is really just childish at this point.

And scare tactics? All I hear about when people try to make you think that SSM is a bad idea is that there will be a complete immoral upheaval in this country. I’m sorry, I can’t take any argument seriously that says if we allow x, y WILL happen because of z. There’s no evidence…OH WAIT! There’s the evidence of so many heterosexual ‘marriages’ that amount to nothing but shams. I seriously have to wonder why no one blinks an eye when saying this.

Point noted. I decry the way heterosexuals, Catholics included, make a mockery of marriage with no-fault divorce as you do. No-fault divorce certainly has not been good for women and their children, as NOW has even conceded. However, does one fix a flat by slashing the other tire? True, marriage has already been devastated by divorce, tax penalties and other anti-family government failures and kids have come out the losers. So where is the wisdom in supporting SSM (and same sex parenting / adoption), which would place children like lab rats in yet another massive social experiment when others have failed, notwithstanding that same sex couples can legally ‘marry’ in some states and children are (being) adopted by same sex parents now. The objective of gay activists is to have SSM pass in every state and national level. Further, as Catholics, should we knowingly participate in or turn a blind eye to the push of legal and social measures against moral principles and Church teaching?

It’s amazing to me how people react (or rather fail to react) to the Kim Kardashian divorce fiasco. Are people so desensitized to two people making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage but are up in arms, so much so that they create organizations for the professed purpose of nipping SSM in the bud? I’m not for SSM, by the way, I’m just trying to figure out which motives are at play here. People tend to give a lot of leeway to those who sin in ways that they could potentially sin or maybe even have sinned. When you (probably) don’t know (let alone love deeply or care about) any gay people and the matter of homosexuality or SSM is just some concept to attach recycled talking points to, it’s so easy to see the sordidness of it all, isn’t it? Much of the ammunition gay rights activists and supporters use specifically targets an apparent overwhelming heterosexual ineptitude to do anything right in the first place when it comes to marriage. Many homosexuals themselves, as some are so quick to point out, come from marriages that just simply weren’t that great, a broken marriage, or a failure to marry in the first place. It reminds me of the other thread in this subforum that concerns Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. The irony at the heart of this work of satire is that while Swift uses numerical and rational means to make his argument for why the plethora of impoverished Irish babies should be eaten, when, and how, the truth is that eating babies is 100% wrong. While there are a lot of good arguments for why legalizing SSM nationwide is 1) fair and 2) within the means of reason (theology and morals aside), when you put the theology and morals into the picture, SSM is just wrong. Why does one need to create 77 lines of straw to make a man and then burn it to convince someone that SSM is wrong? SSM in this country is struggling to survive on the vine if you look at what has ACTUALLY been put in place and people have been fighting this long before it was even legal in one state of the union. There has been, however, nonsense going on from our brothers and sisters tying the knot and then burning it for decades. Why can’t we stop trying to play good guys hunting down bad guys and realize that we’re all in a huge problem together and do something that helps everyone, not just demonizes one subset of people? That’s what irks me about this.

I have been away from the U.S. for three months so I did not follow the Kardashian divorce. Even if I were here, I doubt that I would have because what the Hollywood crowd is doing in their personal lives does not interest me a bit. In the world of arts and culture, I really appreciate the socially meaningful and redeeming work by movie and TV personalities, but I think their personal lives are hardly the shining examples for society and our growing children to follow. Incidentally they are the first ones to pick up causes and be mouthpieces for popularity sake, but not necessarily thinking or believing the cause du jour is good for society. Such as SSM now and no fault divorce before. Is it surprising when they make no apologies for cohabiting in their serial relationships and for betraying their mates / spouses without apparent reservations other than how such decisions would affect the rating of their movie or show and their pocketbooks?

Based on opinions expressed in this thread, the 77 Reasons pamphlet could use a re-write, even as I mentioned I am not against the positions it has advanced secondary to my own research in the issues involved.

Homosexuals should not be hunted down and demonized. Has any in this forum even suggested this? The sexual sins of active homosexuals are not anymore immoral than heterosexuals who fornicate, although homosexual acts are also considered unnatural or abnormal by still a majority of people. A majority of people are supportive of gay rights, but the same majority does not believe that gay ‘marriage’ should be legalized. Do you see the delineation there?
,

 

[Birdpreacher]

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2011/11/3/16/enhanced-buzz-14426-1320353861-18.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2011/11/3/16/enhanced-buzz-23153-1320353932-64.jpg

 

[Elizabeth502]

*[mocking comic strips…(snip)] *

"People" “make a huge leap”? This is the way you respond to the Bishops’ many documents, and the Vatican documents, on the importance of a sacred institution being preserved as a pillar of society? And you believe that the hierarchy of the Church of which you are a member “doesn’t make sense”? By the way, all of those documents have been linked on recent threads on this topic. Any practicing Catholic who is literate about his or her faith would have read these documents and would therefore not make the fallacious statements that the hierarchy is drawing fantastic or illogical conclusions and or creating non-sensical theology.

“People” who understand the importance of these connections are not making “leaps.” Rather, they respect the singular integrity of exclusively traditional marriage, and have logical, rational, legitimate concerns about how the deconstruction of such common understanding affects all of society.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Yup I love my church and I love our sacraments, I doubt that gays will ever marry within the CAtholic Church.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Point noted. I decry the way heterosexuals, Catholics included, make a mockery of marriage with no-fault divorce as you do. No-fault divorce certainly has not been good for women and their children, as NOW has even conceded. However, does one fix a flat by slashing the other tire? True, marriage has already been devastated by divorce, tax penalties and other anti-family government failures and kids have come out the losers. So where is the wisdom in supporting SSM (and same sex parenting / adoption), which would place children like lab rats in yet another massive social experiment when others have failed, notwithstanding that same sex couples can legally ‘marry’ in some states and children are (being) adopted by same sex parents now. The objective of gay activists is to have SSM pass in every state and national level. Further, as Catholics, should we knowingly participate in or turn a blind eye to the push of legal and social measures against moral principles and Church teaching?

I have been away from the U.S. for three months so I did not follow the Kardashian divorce. Even if I were here, I doubt that I would have because what the Hollywood crowd is doing in their personal lives does not interest me a bit. In the world of arts and culture, I really appreciate the socially meaningful and redeeming work by movie and TV personalities, but I think their personal lives are hardly the shining examples for society and our growing children to follow. Incidentally they are the first ones to pick up causes and be mouthpieces for popularity sake, but not necessarily thinking or believing the cause du jour is good for society. Such as SSM now and no fault divorce before. Is it surprising when they make no apologies for cohabiting in their serial relationships and for betraying their mates / spouses without apparent reservations other than how such decisions would affect the rating of their movie or show and their pocketbooks?

Based on opinions expressed in this thread, the 77 Reasons pamphlet could use a re-write, even as I mentioned I am not against the positions it has advanced secondary to my own research in the issues involved.

Homosexuals should not be hunted down and demonized. Has any in this forum even suggested this? The sexual sins of active homosexuals are not anymore immoral than heterosexuals who fornicate, although homosexual acts are also considered unnatural or abnormal by still a majority of people. A majority of people are supportive of gay rights, but the same majority does not believe that gay ‘marriage’ should be legalized. Do you see the delineation there?
,

No, one does not fix a flat by slashing another tire; one fixes a flat by, well…doing just that: fixing the flat. Another way one doesn’t fix a flat is by constantly standing guard, paranoid at the other tires so that they don’t get slashed while completely ignoring the flat in word and action. It’s because so far, Catholics, pretty much as a people have neglected the flat and chalked it up to just being ‘the way things are’ or ‘a shame’ that I can’t take you seriously when you say “I decry the way heterosexuals, Catholics included, make a mockery of marriage with no-fault divorce as you do.” Clearly, you don’t. I know what it’s like to grow up in a broken, messed-up family. I wasn’t the victim of same-sex marriage, and neither are thousands of others; we’re victims of a culture in decline because heterosexuals screwed up marriage in this country first. If you really want to ‘fix the flat’, why don’t you do that so that some who would like to ‘slash another tire on what could be perceived to be a now useless vehicle’ will have less to say about the tire that’s already flat in the first place? Isn’t that what’s better for all of us? The majority of peole in this country are born to at least one of the people who raises them. Why don’t we focus on showing them how to create a home so that there will be fewer people in need of parents in the first place and so we won’t have the fear that these kids may someday end up with two mommies keeping us up at night?

Another pet-peeve I’ve discovered is when someone sneaks a presumption of me or someone else into their argument so as to strengthen said argument. I’m not advocating for SSM by any stretch of the imagination. I’m also not advocating that we as Catholics turn a blind eye to or support something that’s immoral or flies in the face of Church teaching. I’m just asking for balance, for rationality, and for a true solution to a single problem. We should not be fighting against SSM, we should be fighting for marriage. This includes speaking the truth concerning marriage, but wouldn’t our country be better off with the whole truth? That’s a distinction that no one seems to want to make because it requires more work. Instead of JUST finding a target (opposing activists) and levying our ammo, we have to come up with ways to gasp admit that we went wrong, figure out where and how that was and fix ourselves. It’s far more difficult to make friends with ourselves than to make enemies with someone else, on a personal and a societal level.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Sorry. Not even close.

The point, or points, plural, of this passage is to highlight an encounter in which a non-Jew recognizes the extraordinary identity of this man, an acknowledgement which furthers the gospel narrative, affirming Jesus as the Messiah and sharing a lineage with the Jewish prophets, but surpassing them in the level of his direct insight. Remember that to prophesy, in OT times, did not mean only to foretell; it meant more accurately to interpret human events in divine context, and to represent in the person of the prophet the purity and integrity of the Mosaic Law. The extension of the Messiah’s authority beyond Israel is an important theme in John. This episode highlights that fact.

Thirdly, the passage, appearing as it does in the gospel of the most spiritually expressive of all the evangelists, reinforces the persistent themes in this Gospel of personal encounter with Jesus as essential for Christian identity: an encounter in this case which emphasizes the Wisdom and Knowlege of the Logos as John describes Jesus at the outset; clearly Jesus knows the woman with a profound, intimate, direct knowledge at which she marvels aloud, thus again emphasizing Jesus’ divinity for the sake of the Gospel hearers (and us, the readers).

Fourthly, the divinity of Jesus is reinforced by the simultaneous knowledge (of her sin) and transforming mercy, by which her own acknowledgement of her sin is her path to healing. (Jesus as merciful Judge in the way that only divinity can provide mercy and judgment simultaneously.)

Fifthly, the motif of Jesus as the Living Water, sustaining her, is a central element of Johannine theology.

Jesus left it to his Apostles to continue reinforcing the boundaries of moral law when he gave them that authority and that mission. And the Pope inherits that command of Jesus through apostolic succession. Those moral boundaries include the prohibiitions against homosexuality that were operative in Jesus’ time, as Jesus was a faithful follower of the Jewish moral law.

I know, but I think there is more into the story about treating God’s Children equally.
As you probably know the Jews were not allowed to be involved with anything to do with the Samaritan. Jesus, well at least I think this, when he drank with the Samaritan decided even though the Samaritans didn’t follow God they. They were Pagans. Jesus still drank with her I think it meant treat others equally because were all God’s children, and let God decide.
Jesus drank with those not of God. He treated her equally

 

[InSearchofGrace]

No, one does not fix a flat by slashing another tire; one fixes a flat by, well…doing just that: fixing the flat. Another way one doesn’t fix a flat is by constantly standing guard, paranoid at the other tires so that they don’t get slashed while completely ignoring the flat in word and action. …

There are scores of children being raised by unwed mothers and single parents due to divorce. Thru no choice of the children, and sometimes thru no choice of the divorced parent, usually the mother, who is left by her husband and/or father of her child. [Of course, there are cases when it’s the mother who leaves.] It makes for a big generation of children from homes with absent fathers. I am sorry if this is the environment in which you grew up. This is the tragedy of women forced to raise a child by herself after divorce, made more acute by no-fault divorce.

You bring up an octopus of an issue with many tentacles, Corpus Christi. I don’t disagree that balance is important, that a culture in decline has brought about many children victims in homes with absent fathers. The point of the analogy with the car with a flat tire does not pre-suppose that the flat tire was to be left unfixed. It was to underscore that the problem of getting the car to run to run again is made bigger when there are simultaneous obstacles to overcome.

The Church has not been successful in fighting no-fault divorce in this country. But we have to consider that U.S. Catholics are only 22% of the population, with other Christian sects comprising 79%, most members of which supported or did nothing as no-fault divorce passed in their states. Legislators and each governor in various states put no-fault divorce in place, principally to unclog the court system more than in thought of what is best for families.

The personal code I live by does not trash the institution of marriage; the same with my siblings and in my sphere of family and friends, and members in my community / parish. I have one brother who lived the gay lifestyle for a decade, is now out of it, but is still a ‘bruised reed’ if you know what I mean, with issues that have nothing to do with his homosexuality, incidentally. My now aging mother, other siblings, and I, are seriously discussing how we can be supportive as a nuclear family to him, later in life, when he will still be a ‘bachelor’ who will get old and sick just like the rest of us, without a partner or an adult child to look after him. We take care of our own.

I belong to a Church with active ministries to help single mothers and youth struggling with SSA. I teach my two sons the values I learned from my parents and from the Catholic schools I attended. If I can help undo no-fault divorce, I will. I and the rest in the family do not wish to see gays persecuted or discriminated in the work place, in the supermarket, etc., but we are against SSM getting legalized and have voted and will vote accordingly if it gets in the ballot again. We voted to keep Prop 8 but a judge who is by the way a homosexual ruled the vote of the people of the state unconstitutional! In ways that we can, perhaps imperfectly and incompletely as far as someone like you are concerned, we try to be a part of the solution, not add to the problems of society.

So how about you, how do you propose to be part of the solution and not a part of the problem? By living up to Church teaching, not giving in to your acknowledged SSA (for which I applaud you), pointing a finger to us all heterosexuals who ruined traditional marriage? You do not promote SSM but you would not stand in the way of SSM activists who are ‘marching to the altar’ to demand a blessing from priests? You want the Church and Catholics to shut up? If I tell you that should my two sons marry and make me a grandma in the future, I would not want my grandchildren to be taught that Heather has two mommies in second grade because it goes against our family values, would that be unreasonable to you? As related to the 77 Reasons pamphlet that you roundly criticized, along the same vein as some non-Catholics did in this thread who support SSM and gay adoption, do you even know that the focus of Ruth Institute is strengthening marriage, that many of its projects are not just in attack of SSM and gay adoption, but is in the direction, precisely, of “creating homes so that there will be fewer people in need of parents in the first place,” to use your words?

You raised challenging questions in your posts and I imagine you are prepared to be on the receiving end of same, Corpus Christi.

Your turn.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Sorry, this is going to have to be in 2.

You bring up an octopus of an issue with many tentacles, Corpus Christi. I don’t disagree that balance is important, that a culture in decline has brought about many children victims in homes with absent fathers. The point of the analogy with the car with a flat tire does not pre-suppose that the flat tire was to be left unfixed. It was to underscore that the problem of getting the car to run to run again is made bigger when there are simultaneous obstacles to overcome.

Understood. I don’t see how same sex marriage is a huge obstacle, however. It’s only been legal in 5 out of 50 states in the last 10 or so years. It’s not like states are racing to do this. As you said, the majority of the public is not in favor of this. Our incredibly liberal president isn’t even in favor of it. Everyone sees what divorce has done to us. Why can’t we make decent, logical arguments for why divorce is a bad idea and that when people get together, they should really aim to stay together as vocally as we make the case for why same sex marriage is a bad idea?

The Church has not been successful in fighting no-fault divorce in this country. But we have to consider that U.S. Catholics are only 22% of the population, with other Christian sects comprising 79%, most members of which supported or did nothing as no-fault divorce passed in their states. Legislators and each governor in various states put no-fault divorce in place, principally to unclog the court system more than in thought of what is best for families.

Duly noted. I don’t take issue with the failure to affect change, however. I take issue with the failure to make an equal, if not stronger effort.

The personal code I live by does not trash the institution of marriage; the same with my siblings and in my sphere of family and friends, and members in my community / parish. I have one brother who lived the gay lifestyle for a decade, is now out of it, but is still a ‘bruised reed’ if you know what I mean, with issues that have nothing to do with his homosexuality, incidentally. My now aging mother, other siblings, and I, are seriously discussing how we can be supportive as a nuclear family to him, later in life, when he will still be a ‘bachelor’ who will get old and sick just like the rest of us, without a partner or an adult child to look after him. We take care of our own.

That’s really beautiful, thanks for sharing that.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I belong to a Church with active ministries to help single mothers and youth struggling with SSA. I teach my two sons the values I learned from my parents and from the Catholic schools I attended. If I can help undo no-fault divorce, I will. I and the rest in the family do not wish to see gays persecuted or discriminated in the work place, in the supermarket, etc., but we are against SSM getting legalized and have voted and will vote accordingly if it gets in the ballot again. We voted to keep Prop 8 but a judge who is by the way a homosexual ruled the vote of the people of the state unconstitutional! In ways that we can, perhaps imperfectly and incompletely as far as someone like you are concerned, we try to be a part of the solution, not add to the problems of society.

It does my heart well to hear that.

So how about you, how do you propose to be part of the solution and not a part of the problem?

As for me, I’m simply trying to earn a BM in vocal performance and be a voice for reason, balance, and truth.

By living up to Church teaching, not giving in to your acknowledged SSA (for which I applaud you), pointing a finger to us all heterosexuals who ruined traditional marriage?

Si certo, donna.

You do not promote SSM but you would not stand in the way of SSM activists who are ‘marching to the altar’ to demand a blessing from priests?

If they’re marching to the priests to demand a blessing, I’ll leave it in their hands to say “no”. If someone asks me my position, however, I’ll say that I’m an opponent.

You want the Church and Catholics to shut up?

I think I just spent a large part of a week saying that all I wanted was balance and for opposition to same sex marriage to be based on truth, love, and dignity for humanity, not any displaced fear or disgust of homosexuals (which you have demonstrated quite well to not espouse; good for you). I don’t see why questioning of this nature is necessary.

If I tell you that should my two sons marry and make me a grandma in the future, I would not want my grandchildren to be taught that Heather has two mommies in second grade because it goes against our family values, would that be unreasonable to you?

Would it be unreasonable? No. In America, family values (and sometimes lack thereof) tend to influence a lot of things. Would it be the right reason to object to teaching your grandchildren that it’s okay for Heather to have two mommies? No, I don’t think so. I think you should tell your children the whole truth. God doesn’t respect family values. Family values should give respect and have their origin in God. It’s from this origin that you should explain why Heather shouldn’t have two mommies, not just because it’s what your family thinks. What if your family thought that schools shouldn’t be integrated or that people shouldn’t inter-racially marry (not saying you do, but for the sake of argument…)? Would it matter that your family would be wrong? Why should it matter any more that your family just happens to be right on this issue? Tell them the whole truth.

As related to the 77 Reasons pamphlet that you roundly criticized, along the same vein as some non-Catholics did in this thread who support SSM and gay adoption, do you even know that the focus of Ruth Institute is strengthening marriage, that many of its projects are not just in attack of SSM and gay adoption, but is in the direction, precisely, of “creating homes so that there will be fewer people in need of parents in the first place,” to use your words?

Well, no, but now that I do know, I’ll say that I’m thankful that the Ruth Institute is not merely dedicated to misplaced fear of things that deviate from social norms and I’ll take care not to bash them so hard in the future.

You raised challenging questions in your posts and I imagine you are prepared to be on the receiving end of same, Corpus Christi.

Your turn.

As the famous large-nosed dualist once uttered, “Et puis, je touche.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

In America, family values (and sometimes lack thereof) tend to influence a lot of things. Would it be the right reason to object to teaching your grandchildren that it’s okay for Heather to have two mommies? No, I don’t think so. I think you should tell your children the whole truth. God doesn’t respect family values. Family values should give respect and have their origin in God. It’s from this origin that you should explain why Heather shouldn’t have two mommies, not just because it’s what your family thinks.

What, on this or any thread, would give you reason even to suggest that InSearchofGrace bases her values on anything except what comes from God? She has given you nothing to indicate otherwise. Because she happened to mention her own family’s “values” does not give you the right to ascribe to her a controversial political phrase, which apparently has meaning for you that she did not convey.

The Roman Catholic Church does not discuss the phrase “family values” in the Catechism, or any Church documents of which I am aware. That phrase was adopted by various Protestant evangelicals, and has been praised, distorted, caricatured, parodied, and despised, by people of good will and by even more people of ill will. Because that particular phrase has been manipulated by 20th and 21st century politicians has nothing to do with the Roman Church’s position on homosexual behavior and on institutionalizing a radically experimental lifestyle for an entire nation and succeeding generations. Nothing.

Please stop exchanging Roman Catholic theology for popular political rhetoric, thus indirectly calling into question the integrity of the former.

Thank you.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

What, on this or any thread, would give you reason even to suggest that InSearchofGrace bases her values on anything except what comes from God?

Staunch defense of a document that is rife with half-baked logic and potentially harbors xenophobic intent toward a group of people. She herself asked me if it would be unreasonable for her to hypothetically tell her grandchildren that SSM is wrong because it doesn’t agree with her “family values”. I replied that it would not be unreasonable but it wouldn’t be a good enough reason to give. I told her that telling her hypothetical grandchildren the whole truth (God made man and woman to complement each other in marriage, SSM is wrong because it violates God’s plan for families) would not only be reasonable, but it would also more accurately portray the true reason she, the Church, and God object to SSM. Her “family values” should have nothing to do with teaching her grandchildren because, as I said, God is not a respecter of “family values”. He doesn’t respect the “family value” of women forced to be the sole overseer of the domestic sphere and nothing else and he doesn’t respect the “family value” of races being kept pure through prohibition of interracial marriages (the former somewhat still is depending on your circle, the second largely used to be), so why should he respect the “family value” of marriage being between a man and a woman simply because that’s what someone prefers society espouse? He’s the author of morality; He decides what’s morally autonomous. Our personal “values” have nothing to do with it.

She has given you nothing to indicate otherwise. Because she happened to mention her own family’s “values” does not give you the right to ascribe to her a controversial political phrase, which apparently has meaning for you that she did not convey.

See above.

The Roman Catholic Church does not discuss the phrase “family values” in the Catechism, or any Church documents of which I am aware. That phrase was adopted by various Protestant evangelicals, and has been praised, distorted, caricatured, parodied, and despised, by people of good will and by even more people of ill will. Because that particular phrase has been manipulated by 20th and 21st century politicians has nothing to do with the Roman Church’s position on homosexual behavior and on institutionalizing a radically experimental lifestyle for an entire nation and succeeding generations. Nothing.

What’s your point? If the Church doesn’t use the term in her discussion of theology, why is Insearchofgrace using it in her argument in a Catholic forum dedicated to moral theology? Why are you flagellating me for what she apparently did wrong? She used a term that has a lot of baggage. I called her on it. Who’s really to blame here? Are you just bitter because I called the general heterosexual populace that is bent on affecting politics to meet the standards of their moral convictions for possibly having malintention (disdain, disgust, xenophobia, conceit) mixed in with their words and deeds? So far Insearchofgrace has shown me that in her case, it isn’t true. She just apparently has misplaced priorities when it comes to why she would teach her progeny a set of mores. I believe she cares, I just don’t believe, based on what she said, that she should be going around making noise simply because of her own “values” unless she’s telling people that they’re God’s values as well.

Please stop exchanging Roman Catholic theology for popular political rhetoric, thus indirectly calling into question the integrity of the former.

Thank you.

I honestly don’t know why you’re trying to pin something on me. I simply called her on verbage that she herself used. You’re trying to say that I somehow took her verbage the wrong way, even though you yourself admitted that it carries a lot of baggage. What was I supposed to think? It doesn’t matter if the Church doesn’t use it or define it. It’s used and defined by the public and guess what? SHE USED IT, NOT ME. If you’re going to argue, then argue. If you think I shouldn’t have called her on her own gaffe, then say so. Don’t try to play petty, little blame games that go off-topic. Seriously, I’m so far past that.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Staunch defense of a document that is rife with half-baked logic and potentially harbors xenophobic intent toward a group of people. She herself asked me if it would be unreasonable for her to hypothetically tell her grandchildren that SSM is wrong because it doesn’t agree with her “family values”. I replied that it would not be unreasonable but it wouldn’t be a good enough reason to give. I told her that telling her hypothetical grandchildren the whole truth (God made man and woman to complement each other in marriage, SSM is wrong because it violates God’s plan for families) would not only be reasonable, but it would also more accurately portray the true reason she, the Church, and God object to SSM. Her “family values” should have nothing to do with teaching her grandchildren because, as I said, God is not a respecter of “family values”. He doesn’t respect the “family value” of women forced to be the sole overseer of the domestic sphere and nothing else and he doesn’t respect the “family value” of races being kept pure through prohibition of interracial marriages (the former somewhat still is depending on your circle, the second largely used to be), so why should he respect the “family value” of marriage being between a man and a woman simply because that’s what someone prefers society espouse? He’s the author of morality; He decides what’s morally autonomous. Our personal “values” have nothing to do with it.

Actually, InSearchofGrace was scratching her head the first time you stated that God does not respect family values. That made her pause, and was ready to ask for your elaboration, except the way it came about as in the ensuing exchange between you and Elizabeth502 also made her scratch her head.

To first person mode now: The problem is you take such a macro viewpoint right away, therefore bringing in a different context and experience. It is inaccurate as you effectively said that the family values of which I speak were based on personal or family, even social dictates alone. I shared enough background in which I also told you that I am a product of Catholic schools (the lessons in philosophy and moral theology seem distant but they are there), so you could have given me the benefit of the doubt that when I mentioned ‘family values’ in the process of imparting values to my children, I could not have appreciated or meant it as coming from no other source but God, and the Word Made Flesh Who left the Church to guide His people.

Our own Pope BVI when he visited the Baltic nations 5+ years ago also referred to family values and this is the meaning that I use it, not the loaded message of the American political phrase. He said that without family values, nations face the ‘tyranny of instability.’

The countries suffer from the fragility of conjugal bonds, the plague of abortion and the demographic crisis, from scant attention paid to the transmission of authentic values to one’s children, the precariousness of jobs and mobility that breaks up extended family networks. A modernity that is not rooted in authentic human values is destined to be dominated by the tyranny of instability and a widespread sense of being lost.

Pope Benedict thereby called on the bishops not only to help couples prepare for marriage and educate their children in Christian values, but also to engage in a dialogue with the wider society to help others see the social importance of a strong family life.

High divorce rate, even among Catholics, is fueled by cultural influences that destroy the Christian conception of the world, by alcoholism and by the common phenomenon of one spouse – frequently the wife – leaving in search of a better-paying job.

You clearly resent hasty generalizations of the populace about homosexuals and same sex attraction. It might be beneficial if you were to be careful with reaching hasty generalizations yourself about Catholics and non-Catholics who are against SSM and gay parenting / adoption, as it comes across in your posts as well.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

I honestly don’t know why you’re trying to pin something on me. I simply called her on verbage that she herself used. You’re trying to say that I somehow took her verbage the wrong way, even though you yourself admitted that it carries a lot of baggage. What was I supposed to think? It doesn’t matter if the Church doesn’t use it or define it. It’s used and defined by the public and guess what? SHE USED IT, NOT ME.

Question Answered:

Actually, InSearchofGrace was scratching her head the first time you stated that God does not respect family values. …The problem is you take such a macro viewpoint right away, therefore bringing in a different context and experience.

It is inaccurate as you effectively said that the family values of which I speak were based on personal or family, even social dictates alone. I shared enough background in which I also told you that I am a product of Catholic schools (the lessons in philosophy and moral theology seem distant but they are there), so you could have given me the benefit of the doubt that when I mentioned ‘family values’ in the process of imparting values to my children, I could not have appreciated or meant it as coming from no other source but God, and the Word Made Flesh Who left the Church to guide His people.

Our own Pope BVI when he visited the Baltic nations 5+ years ago also referred to family values and this is the meaning that I use it, not the loaded message of the American political phrase. He said that without family values, nations face the ‘tyranny of instability.’

It might be beneficial if you were to be careful with reaching hasty generalizations yourself about Catholics and non-Catholics who are against SSM and gay parenting / adoption, as it comes across in your posts as well.

You have the baggage (regarding the verbiage). You, not her, not me. Let’s stick to this thread, and the Catholics who are responding to the questions asked within a Catholic context – not just some religion which you are fixated on, not the American public, etc.

Let’s move on here.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Actually, InSearchofGrace was scratching her head the first time you stated that God does not respect family values. That made her pause, and was ready to ask for your elaboration, except the way it came about as in the ensuing exchange between you and Elizabeth502 also made her scratch her head.

I don’t understand how I confused either of you. I’m saying that family values, while they aren’t inherently bad, are inherently arbitrary. There is no official list of family values floating around. Invoking the term “family values” is about as authoritative as invoking “domestic policy”. What “family values” does anyone espouse that are so absolute as to be invoked as simply “family values”? That’s why I took offense to the question that started this particular argument. You may not believe it’s right to mistreat someone because they’re gay or they even act on it, but simply saying they’re your “family values” doesn’t mean that someone else can’t say "mistreat away. Conversely, even if teaching your hypothetical grandchildren that gay adoption is wrong is against your family values, what’s to stop someone from adopting the opposite as their own? “Family values” (as I’ve demonstrated before with banning interracial marriage, which used to happen in our country and used to be a family value) are a very wobbly moral foundation. Now, SSM and mistreating anyone are objectively wrong and interracial marriage is objectively amoral, but we don’t derive that from “family values”, do we? Of course not. God’s values are the source of the right family values for anyone, so why shortchange anyone a thorough education in morality by merely teaching someone something simply because we adhere to it ourselves, and furthermore, if that’s not really what you meant, then why did you word it that way?

To first person mode now: The problem is you take such a macro viewpoint right away, therefore bringing in a different context and experience. It is inaccurate as you effectively said that the family values of which I speak were based on personal or family, even social dictates alone. I shared enough background in which I also told you that I am a product of Catholic schools (the lessons in philosophy and moral theology seem distant but they are there), so you could have given me the benefit of the doubt that when I mentioned ‘family values’ in the process of imparting values to my children, I could not have appreciated or meant it as coming from no other source but God, and the Word Made Flesh Who left the Church to guide His people.

Hey, did you give me the benefit of the doubt when you asked me questions that inferred that I supported SSM or that I don’t care about the crumbling of morality around us simply because I wasn’t jumping on this neo-con bandwagon that Catholics seem to be jumping on left and right? Give you a break? Are you serious?

Our own Pope BVI when he visited the Baltic nations 5+ years ago also referred to family values and this is the meaning that I use it, not the loaded message of the American political phrase. He said that without family values, nations face the ‘tyranny of instability.’

The countries suffer from the fragility of conjugal bonds, the plague of abortion and the demographic crisis, from scant attention paid to the transmission of authentic values to one’s children, the precariousness of jobs and mobility that breaks up extended family networks. A modernity that is not rooted in authentic human values is destined to be dominated by the tyranny of instability and a widespread sense of being lost.

Pope Benedict thereby called on the bishops not only to help couples prepare for marriage and educate their children in Christian values, but also to engage in a dialogue with the wider society to help others see the social importance of a strong family life.

High divorce rate, even among Catholics, is fueled by cultural influences that destroy the Christian conception of the world, by alcoholism and by the common phenomenon of one spouse – frequently the wife – leaving in search of a better-paying job.

Okay, very well. I’ll point out, however, that he referred to objective viewpoints like “(Catholic) Christian values” and the Church’s teaching on the family rather than vague terms like the one you used, for which I appreciate his message.

You clearly resent hasty generalizations of the populace about homosexuals and same sex attraction.

What I resent is irrelevant. What I’m speaking out against right now is taking a hasty generalization and running with it in the face of having said generalization challanged with real-life facts. You’re trying to say that SSM means moral demise. I’m trying to say that moral demise is here and it’s not the ever-monolithic gay culture’s fault, yet they seem to be taking a lot of flack from the likes of you. It seems that you’re almost scared to smack any of your straight friends who aren’t doing everything the right way upside the head and tell them they need to change their ways because of a moral decline. I’m just giving you a bit of inspiration. That’s all.

It might be beneficial if you were to be careful with reaching hasty generalizations yourself about Catholics and non-Catholics who are against SSM and gay parenting / adoption, as it comes across in your posts as well.

First, I defy you to find a generalization I’ve made about Catholics and non-Catholics against SSM and gay parenting/adopting. The only thing I’ve said to that effect is that straight people have ruined marriage enough for gays and straights alike (which is true). What’s your point?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I don’t understand how I confused either of you. I’m saying that family values, while they aren’t inherently bad, are inherently arbitrary. There is no official list of family values floating around. Invoking the term “family values” is about as authoritative as invoking “domestic policy”. What “family values” does anyone espouse that are so absolute as to be invoked as simply “family values”? That’s why I took offense to the question that started this particular argument. You may not believe it’s right to mistreat someone because they’re gay or they even act on it, but simply saying they’re your “family values” doesn’t mean that someone else can’t say "mistreat away. Conversely, even if teaching your hypothetical grandchildren that gay adoption is wrong is against your family values, what’s to stop someone from adopting the opposite as their own? “Family values” (as I’ve demonstrated before with banning interracial marriage, which used to happen in our country and used to be a family value) are a very wobbly moral foundation. Now, SSM and mistreating anyone are objectively wrong and interracial marriage is objectively amoral, but we don’t derive that from “family values”, do we? Of course not. God’s values are the source of the right family values for anyone, so why shortchange anyone a thorough education in morality by merely teaching someone something simply because we adhere to it ourselves, and furthermore, if that’s not really what you meant, then why did you word it that way?

:whacky: Besides regurgitation for the third time the reason you don’t like my mention of ‘family values’, you’re now telling me I don’t mean it the way I laid it out to you in Post 37?

Again, I use ‘family values’ in the Catholic context, not the loaded political phrase with which you are stuck. They are marriage and family values that a group of people wish to change with the embrace of new and radical configurations that do not lead to the greater good. I refer to basic family values consistent with Catholic teaching. Along with the pope’s message which I posted, authentic values include the importance of the conjugal bond and a strong family life, and transmission of said values to one’s children, to be passed from generation to generation in the Catholic culture as is true for other cultures. They do not include acceptance of same sex ‘marriage’ and its associated claims to gay ‘parenting’ and adoption. Get it? It is presumptuous of you to think that just because I object to children or grandchildren being conditioned in grade school that Heather having two mommies is okay, that I would exclude the important truths in their moral development such as the sacredness of the marital bond, which when breached leads to family disintegration detrimental to the welfare of children.

Hey, did you give me the benefit of the doubt when you asked me questions that inferred that I supported SSM or that I don’t care about the crumbling of morality around us simply because I wasn’t jumping on this neo-con bandwagon that Catholics seem to be jumping on left and right? Give you a break? Are you serious?

If it was a question, take it as a question, not an inference. I did not say or infer that you don’t care about the crumbling of morality. You wish to remove the focus on SSM (never mind that this thread is about SSM), reasoning that the focus needs to be the immorality of heterosexuals and how they have already trashed marriage before homosexuals demanded to legalize SSM. You showcased in a long post here and in another thread the Kardashian divorce as if her situation is representative. You declared in effect that Catholics should simply drop the debate on SSM, your words below

We should not be fighting against SSM, we should be fighting for marriage.

As I stated upthread, Catholics need to heed Church admonition to preserve the sanctity of marriage AND also meet the challenge presented by pro-gay advocates in legalizing SSM.

I did not second guess you when you stated that you are against SSM. But, you obviously second guess me and continue to do so with my meaning of ‘family values’!

Okay, very well. I’ll point out, however, that he referred to objective viewpoints like “(Catholic) Christian values” and the Church’s teaching on the family rather than vague terms like the one you used, for which I appreciate his message.

So you backpedal, then come back to my use of ‘vague terms’ like the one I used, which refers to family values?! Again! See what I mean? You’re stuck.

[Con’t]