Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? - Presentation

[InSearchofGrace]

[Con’t]

…
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.

My goodness. The gay culture taking a lot of flak from the likes of me. I am almost scared to smack any of my straight friends who aren’t doing everything the right way upside the head …? Can you be more disdainful and contemptuous?

You need to re-read my posts upthread including how I try to be part of the solution. Unlike you, I don’t believe repetition provides for a weightier argument.

To clarify, I have not denied nor have I come across a post or posts in this forum denying the immorality in our culture and the problem of divorce in families, Catholic and non-Catholic, as significant contributors to the moral decline. I have not claimed nor has anyone here in the posts I’ve read made a claim that SSM is the sole destroyer of traditional marriage. If you have, please refer to it. What has been discussed in CAF threads is the cascade of negative consequences to society following the introduction of the pill in the early 60’s and the seeming prophetic message of Humanae Vitae encyclical by Pope Paul VI in retrospect. Even social scientists agree.

Further, our world, our age, was not ever free from moral turpitude. Satan and his army of fallen angels are everywhere and they have had successes. But I don’t agree that moral demise is here. Not for everyone. Moral demise means spiritual death. As a society we are not there yet. If citizens are not scared or worried about a morally and spiritually dead society, they should be.

We cannot disregard the momentum towards legalization of SSM and people who facilitate it through active participation or by inaction. This leads to further evil and separation of man and God.

You may not agree but I say this without apology and without equivocation: legalization of SSM would mean MORE and ACCELERATED moral decline until indeed we reach moral demise. Our country should not go there. Catholics are called to stand behind Church teaching against same sex unions and efforts towards its legalization, as it will harm our children, our families and the future of society.
…
Earlier, you indicated you wish to be a voice of reason, balance and truth. And you just stated that you are just giving me a bit of inspiration, right after hurling some unseemly comments. This is an internet forum, so you could not possibly know the personal evangelizing when appropriate that I do in my sphere of family members, friends and associates. At the parish level, I actively seek ways to uplift the community in small ways, such as signing up for the Protecting God’s Children program for possible volunteer work.

Do you have specific ways that you make yourself a part of the solution to the problem of society of which you speak, other than giving us a piece of your mind in this forum?

Btw, I came across a posting by you in another thread which is confusing:

… It’s amazing to me how some of you said that you paid literally no attention to the thing that’s ripping marriage apart in this country, yet when it comes to SSM, you actually come out in favor of things like** DOMA, which clearly does nothing to stop what’s actually threatening marriage right now**.

SSM is a threat albeit not the only threat to the institution of marriage. Are you in favor of repealing DOMA, even as all the U.S. Catholic bishops would like to see DOMA upheld? If you are, how do you explain the seeming disconnect with your declaration that you are a Catholic who is not in favor of SSM?

[Con’t]

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[Con’t]

…
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?

If you carefully read the posts that I directed to you, you would have gotten the point. There are many people in this forum who have genuine concerns and possessing good logic in speaking against legalized SSM and the ills that would visit and make a home in our society.

As for your statements with generalizations:

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.

You were referring to the Ruth Institute and I corrected you that the institute has projects to strengthen traditional marriage and it is not only fighting the battle against SSM, gay ‘parenting’ and adoption.

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?

You were referring to teaching children, assuming that parents like me are only teaching against SSA and SSM, not including values associated with strong family and conjugal bonds. Your statement is not reflective of a concern for gay ‘parenting.’ It is error to assume (not to say you assume) that gay ‘parenting’ is no worse than single parenting. It is error to assume, as pro-gays are quick to do, that gay ‘parenting’ is preferable to growing up in foster homes. This is why Catholic adoption agencies would choose to close than be forced to place kids in same sex parent homes.

…What irks me is how easily all of you are going to start lending testimonials to your own marriages, the marriages of parents, siblings, other family, and friends even though those marriages, just as well as any others out there are 50% likely to result in a legal divorce over “irreconcilable differences”.

You directed the above quote to married heterosexuals in another thread, Kim Kardashian divorce thread, I think.

And the following quote from Is there a Gay Teen Suicide Epidemic thread

I even get annoyed at comments made by lay Catholics in forums like this one on the matter. Most of the time, they don’t have any close friends or family who deal with homosexuality in a real way, and to them it’s just a concept to throw around. It’s never a reality. They don’t have to see someone everyday who’s struggling with their sexuality. When it’s not there in front of you, you can think, postulate, presume whatever you want with no consequence to anyone, especially anyone you care about. That’s why when they approach gay people, faithfully Catholic or not, they always do so with some preconceived notion that’s always somehow off-color. It almost feels like they care more about the idea than they do about the person. It’s sickening.

You are mistaken. Most Catholics including me do have close friends or family who deal with homosexuality in a real way.

[END]

 

[Nate13]

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

He was teaching that everyone was a child of God and worthy of being treated as so. Think about it for a second. If all the Jews shunned people that weren’t Jewish, how are they going to bring anyone back into the fold? The whole point was the Jews didn’t consider them to be worthy of bringing back into the fold. They didn’t see them as children of God and therefore were not worthy of redemption. Your right in saying that he was trying to show them that everyone was a child of God not just the Jews, but he never said ignore their sins haha. Ignoring their sins is exactly what the Jews had been doing. They had been saying to themselves “Their pagans, of course they sin and why should we care?”.

Think about the parable where the shepherd took the time to go after that one sheep who was lost and wouldn’t stand for losing any one of them. The Jews would have left it out there to fend for itself and disowned it. Jesus the Good Shepherd ventured out though, found the sheep, and brought it back into the fold. He didn’t go out and find it on the cliff side and tell the sheep “don’t worry about the danger your in, here let me help you wander farther out”. No, he found that sheep and led it back home He also didn’t shy away from telling the poor sheep it was lost and wait till it figured out it was lost now did he?

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

: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?

No. I’m telling you I don’t care what you meant. The term in itself is a loaded and yet empty phrase altogether (as I “regurgitated” for the third time, now for the fourth). If you wanted to actually say something about your Christian values, why not call them Christian values and not “family” values?

Again, I use ‘family values’ in the Catholic context, not the loaded political phrase with which you are stuck.

There are lots of Catholic families that have values that differ. Which ones are inherently Catholic and which ones are not? No two families operate in the exact same way. No matter what “context” you use it in, “family values” is a loaded term. Catholic values (or Christian values, technically) are, at least in part, written out for us to follow. What does the term “family values” even mean in real life situations for which a parent may not even be prepared? Take the issue of having a son or daughter who struggles with their sexuality. Do Catholic parents in this situation have to make or even encourage their children go to therapy in hopes they might change or can they forgo that measure because said son or daughter believes Church teaching and will live their life chastely no matter what? What’s the answer and to which “family value in a Catholic context” does this correspond?

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.

The pot calling the kettle black, I see.

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.

A conjugal bond and a strong family life. Wow. That’s awesome and all (and you have to believe that I’m so glad you finally gave me somewhat of a concrete answer), but since those two things are so nebulous, how can they have any true meaning? They don’t speak to how the family should operate in real life. It’s just taking some spaced-out, nebulous ideal and smacking it on the face of “family” and saying “those are family values”. How does that have ANYTHING to do with what gay rights groups are fighting against? This seriously speaks to the “us and them” attitude I alluded to earlier (and since that “generalization” has yet to be effectively denied or disproved, it still stands as a mere observation, not a “generalization, as you put it”).

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.

Again, what’s your point? SSM isn’t very popular. As I said before, our own liberal president doesn’t even approve of it. Why do you dedicate yourself so vehemently to the speaking of truth to people that you identify as so opposite of yourself with respect to values, yet there’s immorality ALL AROUND YOU that you’re not arguing with someone about on the internet? Why is this SO important when it hasn’t been around for a decade, it’s unpopular, and you’ve got bigger fish to fry, oh, but who cares? SSM wrecks families…though ironically it hasn’t wrecked the 50% of OSMs that happen every year. Get it?

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

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

Now who’s presumptuous? I never inferred that the debate should be dropped. I just inferred that the debate is very anti-SSM heavy and it shouldn’t be. I have no problem with public opposition to SSM. What I take issue with is how it’s become one of the biggest issues this country faces and it’s not just because of pro-SSM groups or ideology. Basically, their line for as long as they’ve been operating is that if it came to a straight couple and a gay couple, the two could parent just about as well, and given what we see with respect to broken families, children losing their way, etc., I’m willing to admit that they’re probably right. That’s what’s wrong with your arguments. You want to fight the impending tide of gay-rights hoopla but as you’ve said, you only promote the rest of your family values in action only. You behave as if SSM is the greatest threat to marriage and as I’ve stated over and over again while using valid points, it simply is not. If you believe that it is, then please tell me how the wreck we have due to general immorality across the board pales in comparison to SSM (which, might I remind you, is very young, very limited, and rather unpopular).

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.

And the best way to do both is raise your family, mind your business, and let OSM families (no matter what state they’re in) live their lives while actively speaking out against SSM even if you don’t even know two gay people who got “married”? I’m having trouble understanding why you don’t see your clear and blatant prejudice on this matter.

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’!

Not until those rote, rapped off responses agreeing how marriage is in the toilet not due to SSM become as much a pledge to do something real about the trouble OSM is in as much as you’re railing against SSM, the affects of which we probably won’t get to until 20 or so years have passed.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I believe I responded to your omitted text sufficiently in my latest rebuttal.

[Con’t]Do you have specific ways that you make yourself a part of the solution to the problem of society of which you speak, other than giving us a piece of your mind in this forum?

Are you admitting that I’m being a part of the solution and NOT part of the problem? I’d like to think that I am. To answer your question, I do my part by being a good citizen, a good college student, and a good Catholic. I call out injustice, ignorance, and wrongdoing when I see it and I’m not afraid to stand up for my principles…all of them.

I think part of the problem in American society especially is this extremism that’s espoused by two sides when it comes to issues like this. I’ve already said that I believe SSM is not a great, let alone the greatest threat to marriage. Why do you believe that it is? Where are you getting this? How can you look at your country and think that the one thing that will wreck what marriage means to everyone is SSM? The reason SSM has gained ground is because many people have realized that their own marriages or the marriages in which they were raised weren’t that great (if they were lucky enough to be raised in a marriage, that is. It’s as if people have been throwing garbage on your lawn for weeks and the one day you find out that some rude neighbor took a carp on your lawn, you decide then and there that you’ve had it and that the one neighbor who defecated on your property should be stopped…even though people have been repeatedly throwing lots of garbage on it. That’s honestly how I feel you’re treating this situation.

SSM is a threat albeit not the only threat to the institution of marriage. Are you in favor of repealing DOMA, even as all the U.S. Catholic bishops would like to see DOMA upheld?

If DOMA included a clause about divorce in this country that would overturn the current divorce law, I would think that’s a great thing. Honestly, I don’t think the politicians who support it (many of whom are remarried from a divorce) would go for it, so it’s not really relevant. Right now, I think something called the Defense of Marriage Act that only defends marriage from a demographic minority that have been shunned, disrespected as people, harassed, and ridiculed is a misnomer because it defends marriage from the one messed up dude who defecated on it and not from the plethora of people throwing trash on it. In short, it’s insufficient. That’s the only thing that makes me unhappy about it. Do I think it should be repealed, no. Do I think it does what it claims to do, well…at least you won’t have to worry about your hypothetical grandchildren knowing that Heather has two mommies. We can’t guarantee that their parents will stay together for the rest of their lives, though, and the former should worry you more than the latter. Much, much more.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

[Con’t]

If you carefully read the posts that I directed to you, you would have gotten the point. There are many people in this forum who have genuine concerns and possessing good logic in speaking against legalized SSM and the ills that would visit and make a home in our society.

As for your statements with generalizations:

You were referring to the Ruth Institute and I corrected you that the institute has projects to strengthen traditional marriage and it is not only fighting the battle against SSM, gay ‘parenting’ and adoption.

I think the “little to no” accounts for some of the logic they have behind their arguments against gay marriage. I also never said that their own or anyone else’ efforts were exclusive, they were just imbalanced. If what I said can count as a generalization, then you found one. Good for you. I still maintain that it’s true nonetheless, unless you want to convince me otherwise.

You were referring to teaching children, assuming that parents like me are only teaching against SSA and SSM, not including values associated with strong family and conjugal bonds. Your statement is not reflective of a concern for gay ‘parenting.’ It is error to assume (not to say you assume) that gay ‘parenting’ is no worse than single parenting. It is error to assume, as pro-gays are quick to do, that gay ‘parenting’ is preferable to growing up in foster homes. This is why Catholic adoption agencies would choose to close than be forced to place kids in same sex parent homes.

That, I will say, is actually wrong and it misses the whole point of what I said. My point was that at large, there’s no enough effort put into helping heterosexuals establish and maintain healthy marriages when they don’t have role models (and many don’t) and that if you paid more attention to that, the problem just might gasp fix itself. If that’s a generalization, then congratulations! You just won…nothing. It’s just as true as it would be if anyone else said it somewhere else.

I omitted the next one because 1. it’s not from our discussion in this forum and 2. I purposely made that generalization to get under people’s skin. Oh, and third: that entire post had everything to do with what I’m discussing here with you: Catholics care about the ills of society that Catholics at large aren’t participating in and tend to leave the others alone. Coincidence? I don’t think so. coughdoublestandardscough

And the following quote from Is there a Gay Teen Suicide Epidemic thread

You are mistaken. Most Catholics including me do have close friends or family who deal with homosexuality in a real way.

What are you basing this generalization on? Aren’t we 2-3% of the population? How does most of such a wide democraphic (22%) have “close friends” and “family” that make up, at most, 3%? I’m not trying to infer that the population of gay people is larger, I’m just asking how you know this and can figure it from the numbers I just gave you.

 

[michelleds]

I think the “little to no” accounts for some of the logic they have behind their arguments against gay marriage. I also never said that their own or anyone else’ efforts were exclusive, they were just imbalanced. If what I said can count as a generalization, then you found one. Good for you. I still maintain that it’s true nonetheless, unless you want to convince me otherwise.

That, I will say, is actually wrong and it misses the whole point of what I said. My point was that at large, there’s no enough effort put into helping heterosexuals establish and maintain healthy marriages when they don’t have role models (and many don’t) and that if you paid more attention to that, the problem just might gasp fix itself. If that’s a generalization, then congratulations! You just won…nothing. It’s just as true as it would be if anyone else said it somewhere else.

I omitted the next one because 1. it’s not from our discussion in this forum and 2. I purposely made that generalization to get under people’s skin. Oh, and third: that entire post had everything to do with what I’m discussing here with you: Catholics care about the ills of society that Catholics at large aren’t participating in and tend to leave the others alone. Coincidence? I don’t think so. coughdoublestandardscough

And the following quote from Is there a Gay Teen Suicide Epidemic thread

What are you basing this generalization on? Aren’t we 2-3% of the population? How does most of such a wide democraphic (22%) have “close friends” and “family” that make up, at most, 3%? I’m not trying to infer that the population of gay people is larger, I’m just asking how you know this and can figure it from the numbers I just gave you.

Corpus, I’m on my cell phone and can’t respond as completely as I’d like but you are coming across as manic in your personal attacks on InSearchofGrace. You seem to have gotten launched on “family values” for some reason and now u need to stop and reflect on your vitriole. I mean your own exams above makes the opposite of your point: garbage on my lawn is not the same as feces. Finally this bread is about SSM. If u want to rail, start your own thread.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Corpus, I’m on my cell phone and can’t respond as completely as I’d like but you are coming across as manic in your personal attacks on InSearchofGrace.

Manic? Really?

You seem to have gotten launched on “family values” for some reason and now u need to stop and reflect on your vitriole.

First, I don’t dispense vitriole. I may be a tough debater, but don’t think for a minute that I’ve said anything in cruelty or disdain. I simply want an admission that InSearchofGrace and many Catholics at large might be a bit lopsided in terms of their criticism of SSM. She seems to be under the impression that because SSM poses a threat to marriage, it takes priority to the others (which it doesn’t. clearly.)

I mean your own exams above makes the opposite of your point: garbage on my lawn is not the same as feces. Finally this bread is about SSM. If u want to rail, start your own thread.

My point had anything to do with the difference or for that matter, the similarity between Garbage and feces. It had to do with someone concentrating on one spot on their lawn that was pooped on and not really doing much about the mounds of garbage that have been accumulating. Reading further into an analogy than the author of said analogy meant to speak doesn’t really make a difference.

Besides all of this talk of “family values”, I previously made a point that never really got a reply since Elizabeth got all bent out of shape over my criticism of InSearchofGrace’s use of the loaded term (regardless of its context) “family values” and our discussion took a detour? I’d like to add that the point I made about that was simply one in the post that included it. Those got ignored as well.

The link’s here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8570432&postcount=33

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

In lieu of Michelle’s comment about my rail against the use of the term “family values”, I’d like to remind those involved in this discussion that I objected to the use of the term for the purpose of reasoning with someone else, not to InSearchofGrace’s personal family values (whatever they are). It seems that Elizabeth was under the impression that I meant the latter. If you would like to argue otherwise or if you’re just curious, I’d encourage you to look at this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8571414&postcount=35

I don’t think it’s pertinent when discussing theology to use non-theological language (that just happens to be loaded and philosophically meaningless), apply Catholicism to it, and then say that it means something. The term “family values” has never meant anything substantial to me. Upon joining this discussion, I’ve decided that it means nothing to me largely because in actuality, it means nothing. As I said, outside of Catholicism, racism or hatred of others could just as well be called family values. When you put it in a Catholic context, the two examples InSearchofGrace gave can be applied in reality through so many styles of parenting and so many styles of handling the semantics of being husband and wife as to render them as arbitrary as the term family values. When something doesn’t have a strict definition, you can’t really use it to make a logical argument and have it stand. It doesn’t really help your case that not only can it be defined a billion ways outside of the Church, the Church doesn’t even define or use it. Face it, you’re the one who’s stuck, InSearchofGrace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree with Michelle. You’re spending exorbitant amounts of keystrokes denying that you said what you said, denying that you have a tone that others also notice you to have, including (most recently) your attack upon me that I “got all bent out of shape,” which implies an emotionally untoward response to statements. In fact, I was responding to the intellectual content of your posts, and I objected to those posts, and still reject to their intellectual content.

You apply a tone to and about Michelle, InSearchofGrace, and me, that is condescending.

I do not observe others to be “stuck.” I do observe you to be stuck in repeatedly trying to establish that no one has any legitimacy to challenge your actual statements (not to mention your tone). IOW, I agree with Michelle’s impression that you are “railing,” and it seems in an effort to establish dominance over others, rather than arguing your actual points.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I agree with Michelle. You’re spending exorbitant amounts of keystrokes denying that you said what you said, denying that you have a tone that others also notice you to have, including (most recently) your attack upon me that I “got all bent out of shape,” which implies an emotionally untoward response to statements. In fact, I was responding to the intellectual content of your posts, and I objected to those posts, and still reject to their intellectual content.

You apply a tone to and about Michelle, InSearchofGrace, and me, that is condescending.

I do not observe others to be “stuck.” I do observe you to be stuck in repeatedly trying to establish that no one has any legitimacy to challenge your actual statements (not to mention your tone). IOW, I agree with Michelle’s impression that you are “railing,” and it seems in an effort to establish dominance over others, rather than arguing your actual points.

Hey, this can all be over if one of us walks away. I think I’ll do that. As far as I’m concerned, this thread is closed. Over and out.

 

[michelleds]

You are going on because you feel like Catholics are spending too much time and energy fighting SSM marriage and neglecting other dangers and threats to marriage and family. One thing u don’t appear to be taking into account is “apostolate”. Everyone cannot focus on everything at once. We are all called or feel called to certain issues. That does not imply an ordering of importance. Mother T cldn’t be in India and gangland LA at the same time.