Same-Sex Marriage

[Libero]

That very strange atmosphere you were talking about will be our society if SSM is legal and some of these children are brought up by people in SSM. And since you are a child still, you really do not see the problem it could have on our society since you obviously do not have children and do not recognise a lot of the not so obvious harms. There are things I didn’t think about at 24 when I didn’t have children.

Oh really, and I suppose that the problem is going to be the fact that homosexuals will be allowed to have sex in the streets? The society does not change that drastically, in case you have not noticed, I live in England, and can say that really there has been no significant change - I have also been to Spain since the law change there, and the Spanish children are not manicly running around or sitting in a stupor due to civil unions.

And as for topics that parents think off, I do have a relationship between my parents that allows me to talk to them - and the impact of having a child has come up as a conversation topic, I have never heard them voice concern about the impact that an increasingly homosexual society will have on their children - I can go and ask now though - if you like?

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

We live in a country that does live by a moral code, and there is no getting around that one unless you completely abolish all laws. We can’t kill, we can’t have sex with minors, we can’t steal, we can’t lie under oath, I’m forced to pay taxes for things that I may find immoral, unethical, or that I do not believe in or want to participate in etc… etc…

Yes, but it’s moral code that we as a society agree on by consenus, n ot one dictated by the Catholic Church. Further, that consensus appears to be shifting toward permitting homosexuals to form civil unions.

 

[felra]

BillP:

Originally Posted by luvmykids

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that marriage has a religious foundation,

Because it doesn’t. Why is it so difficult to believe that marriage has been codified as a matter of civil law since the Code of Hammurabi roughly 1800 years before Christ?

The ancient Chinese codified marriage in civil law completely independant of ANY Judeo-Christian influence whatever, as did pre-Columbian Americans, Australian Aborigines, and Indians. In short, human societies were marrying before anyone had ever heard of Jehovah.

It’s not hard that we have trouble understanding, its that we reject your definintion. See?.

And the difference between this and civil unions is what?

Society itself is what began to take religion out of marriage and that’s when it all started to come crashing down, and now our divorce rate is so high.

No, religion inserted inself into a pre-existing civil institution. See the top part of my message.

Christian influence has preserved, purified and sanctified the societal institution of marriage. To assert otherwise is to be ignorant of the history of marriage in western society.

The attitude of contemporary scholars is thus described by Howard: “The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race” (History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91).

The verdict of experience and the voice of nature reinforce, consequently, the Christian teaching on the unity of marriage. Moreover, the progress of the race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of Christianity than to all other forces combined. Christianity has not only abolished or diminished polyandry and polygamy among the savage and barbarous peoples which it has converted, but it has preserved Europe from the polygamous civilization of Mohammedanism, has kept before the eyes of the more enlightened peoples the ideal of an unadulterated monogamy, and has given to the world its highest conception of the equality that should exist between the two parties in the marriage relation. And its influence on behalf of monogamy has extended, and continues to extend, far beyond the confines of those countries that call themselves Christian.

newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

A Marriage Made in History?

By Don Browning and Elizabeth Marquardt
New York Times, March 9, 2004

In addition to the lack of sociological data, there is also a lack of historical knowledge. Marriage is frequently characterized as a religious institution laden with old prejudices. It is true that Judaism and Christianity have contributed much to the Western understanding of marriage. But it is also true that they absorbed parts of the secular marital codes of Greek law, Aristotelian philosophy, Roman law and German law. Even in ancient secular systems, legal marriage was seen as a way to help society regulate and achieve a complex set of desires and goals: sexual activity, procreation, mutual help and affection, and parental care and accountability.

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/marriage_history.html

 

[luvmykids]

Libero:

And as for topics that parents think off, I do have a relationship between my parents that allows me to talk to them - and the impact of having a child has come up as a conversation topic, I have never heard them voice concern about the impact that an increasingly homosexual society will have on their children - I can go and ask now though - if you like?

That’s great that you have that relationship with your parents, but just the fact that you have to go ask them something, proves my point that you are not mature enough to be having this discussion right now. Your (name removed by moderator)ut coming from a 15 year olds point of view is greatly appreciated, but I do not think you can speak on matters of raising children and how that might impact them.

 

[BillP]

felra:

Christian influence has preserved, purified and sanctified the societal institution of marriage. To assert otherwise is to be ignorant of the history of marriage in western society.

Of course religion has had an influence on marriage, but it didn’t invent marriage and it’s not entitled to define it for humans who aren’t adherents of that particular religion. Witness the divergence of the mores of divorce and re-marriage in secular and Catholic marriage over the past 50+ years.

I’m sure you have a point here somewhere…?

 

[Libero]

That’s great that you have that relationship with your parents, but just the fact that you have to go ask them something, proves my point that you are not mature enough to be having this discussion right now. Your (name removed by moderator)ut coming from a 15 year olds point of view is greatly appreciated, but I do not think you can speak on matters of raising children and how that might impact them.

Well, perhaps such philosophy should be applied not only to the youth, but also to parents - whilst it is good that you have had x amount of years experience in raising children, that does not justify one trying to use their personal experience and force it upon everyone, using it as an excuse to try and stop civil unions - whilst some parents may disagree with the civil unions on the grounds that they believe they shall really harm their child, there shall also be an equal amount of parents who do not object to civil unions - thus, the very idea that children should be considered when making laws regarding civil unions cannot be taken seriously, as the parents do not know what effect something that has unprecedented history will have, and their view is formed predominantly by their existing bias. Many parents who argue against civil unions would do so if they had children or not, now they are just incorporating their children, and that personal experience into their argument.

 

[felra]

Of course religion has had an influence on marriage, but it didn’t invent marriage and it’s not entitled to define it for humans who aren’t adherents of that particular religion.

God actually “invented” marriage by natural law design. The government represents and protects the mores and beliefs of the citizens of the society. We live in a society made up of majority Judeo-Christian and founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. Besides, the traditional family unit has been and is the basic foundation for stability in any society.

Witness the divergence of the mores of divorce and re-marriage in secular and Catholic marriage over the past 50+ years.

I’m sure you have a point here somewhere…?

You are simple pointing out the unfortunate pendulum swing as a consequence of the 1960’s and onward liberalism and disobedience to traditiona family values. Give it time, the pendulum will be swinging back as the costs (emotional, psychological, econimic, spiritual) of the failed experiment in liberalism and relativism gone riot become too expensive to maintain.

It is substantially true to say that the majority of savage races authorized the husband to divorce his wife wherever he felt so inclined. A majority of even the more advanced peoples who remained outside the pale of Christianity

restrict the right of divorce to the husband, although the reason for which he could put away his wife are, as a rule, not so numerous as among the uncivilized races. In some of the non-Catholic countries divorce is extremely easy and scandalously frequent. Between 1890 and 1900 the divorces granted in the United States averaged 73 per 100,000 of the population annually. This was more than twice the rate in any other Western nation.

The obligation of self-control, and of subordinating the animal in human nature to the reason and the spirit, as well as the possibility of fulfilling this obligation, are likewise taught in a most striking and practical manner. Humanity is thus aided and encouraged to reach a higher moral plane. In the matter of the indissolubility, as well as in that of the unity of marriage, therefore, the Christian teaching is in harmony with nature at her best, and with the deepest needs of civilization. “There is abundant evidence”, says Westermarck, “that marriage has, upon the whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has risen to higher degrees of civilization, and that a certain amount of civilization is an essential condition of the formation of lifelong union” (op. cit., p. 535). This statement suggests two tolerably safe generalizations: first, that the prohibition of divorce during many centuries has been a cause as well as an effect of those 'higher degrees of civilization" that have been already attained: and, second, that the same policy will be found essential to the highest degree of civilization.

newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

 

[BillP]

felra:

God actually “invented” marriage by natural law design. The government represents and protects the mores and beliefs of the citizens of the society. We live in a society made up of majority Judeo-Christian and founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. Besides, the traditional family unit has been and is the basic foundation for stability in any society.

That is what you and I believe because we are Catholics. Other Americans believe differently.

Are you advocating the imposition of the Roman Catholic definition of divorce and remarriage for ALL American’s whether they are Catholic or not?

felra:

You are simple pointing out the unfortunate pendulum swing as a consequence of the 1960’s and onward liberalism and disobedience to traditiona family values. Give it time, the pendulum will be swinging back as the costs (emotional, psychological, econimic, spiritual) of the failed experiment in liberalism and relativism gone riot become too expensive to maintain.

Well, I think the trend toward greater personal freedom goes back further than the 1960’s, say at least to the Renaissance. But I suppose we can always agree to disagree.

 

[felra]

BillP:

felra:

Because I recognize that I don’t live in a theocracy. I am not entitled to force my religious views on morality on others no matter how true those values are. Why is that so hard to understand?

In my opinion, there is no “Catholic criteria” for extending civil rights. I live in a secular republic governed by a constitution that specifically gives each of its citizens the right to follow whatever religion they see fit. Thus I am legally prevented from forcing my views of religion on others. That includes forcing my views of what constitutes moral and immoral behavior upon my countrymen.

In turn my right to be Catholic is legally protected. Anyone who freely chooses to love God, follow his direction adn become Catholic is free to do so.

What is the problem?

The problem appears that you have allowed your religious values and beliefs to take a back seat to secular humanism, the prevailing ethos and edict of our post-modernism society. As a Catholic you are first and foremost a member of the Body of Christ, His holy Church, and incumbent to this are a partaker of the mission of the Church to spread the Gospel and to convert others to the truth.

"It is a part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.” (2246

CCC)

“When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that he might continually sanctify the Church.” Then “the Church was openly displayed to the crowds and the spread of the Gospel among the nations, through preaching, was begun.” As the “convocation” of all men for salvation, the Church in her very nature is missionary, sent by Christ to all the nations to make disciples of them." (**767 **

CCC)

God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”: that is, of Christ Jesus. Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations (**74 **CCC)

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Yes, but it’s moral code that we as a society agree on by consenus, n ot one dictated by the Catholic Church. Further, that consensus appears to be shifting toward permitting homosexuals to form civil unions.

It appears that way, maybe because of the media, but in actuality you keep using the religion argument by talking about Roman Catholics, like we are the only who believe homosexuality is wrong. The five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold the natural, heterosexual understanding of marriage. By contrast, these religions teach that homosexual behavior is sinful or wrong.The majority of Americans are not atheist, therefore the likelihood of the majority of them wanting this to be something legal is unlikely.

 

[felra]

That is what you and I believe because we are Catholics. Other Americans believe differently.

Are you advocating the imposition of the Roman Catholic definition of divorce and remarriage for ALL American’s whether they are Catholic or not?

The Judeo-Chrisitian definition of marriage, the failure that divorce represents, and remarriage as RC canon allows for divorced Catholics.

Well, I think the trend toward greater personal freedom goes back further than the 1960’s, say at least to the Renaissance. But I suppose we can always agree to disagree.

Witness the divergence of the mores of divorce and re-marriage in secular and Catholic marriage over the past 50+ years.

I limited myself to recent history – yes, the infrastructure roots of revolt against traditional Judeo-Christian values go back to recent centuries.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

It appears that way, maybe because of the media, but in actuality you keep using the religion argument by talking about Roman Catholics, like we are the only who believe homosexuality is wrong. The five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold the natural, heterosexual understanding of marriage.

Well I thought I was speaking exclusively to other Catholics on this forum. If there are adherents of other religions about, I would be happy to address their beliefs as well, to whatever extent they try to dictate behavior to folks who don’t subscribe to the religion.

luvmykids:

The majority of Americans are not atheist, therefore the likelihood of the majority of them wanting this to be something legal is unlikely.

It is of course incorrect to equate being in favor of SSM (in the form of civil unions with Atheism. I am in favor of SSM and am not an atheist. As for your assertion that the majority of Americans don’t favor them, it certainly appears to be moving in that direction:

While 48% of those surveyed say allowing gay unions “will change our society for the worse,” 50% say they would be an improvement or have no effect.

usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-06-marry-inside-usat_x.htm

2003-MAY: Civil unions, and healthcare / Social Security survivor benefits: The Gallup Organization conducted a poll asking for public opinion on a law that would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions and receive some of the legal rights of married couples. The nation’s adults are, for the first time, evenly divided:

                                 **Civil Unions? 49% in favor                    49% opposed                                            **

For the first time, the Gallup Organization sought the public’s opinion about healthcare and Social Security for same-sex committed couples. The question was: “Do you think homosexual couples should or should not have the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples regarding healthcare benefits and Social Security survivor benefits?” American adults appear to be more strongly in favor of equal benefits for gays and lesbians than are in favor of civil unions:

                                   **as of May 2003, 62%** **Favor benefits, 35%**              **Oppose            benefits**

3% had No Opinon

 

[BillP]

felra:

The Judeo-Chrisitian definition of marriage, the failure that divorce represents, and remarriage as RC canon allows for divorced Catholics.

So are you advocating civil legislation that prohibits non-Catholic divorced people from marrying again?

In what other ways do you want to impose Catholic morality?

Scheduling BCPs as controlled narcotics?
Criminalizing possession/use/distribution of Condoms?
Compulsory Mass on Sundays? (Can people go to their own Church as long as they go to some Church?)
Requiring all restauranst to remove meat from Friday menus?

How far does my obligation to fight “secular humanism” go?

 

[luvmykids]

usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-06-marry-inside-usat_x.htm

Just as you can and seem to dismiss any of the studies and statistics I cite, I can do the same to you and say that this one study does not necessarily represent the majority of Americans. You can get any study to say anything you want and I actually heard the opposite was true from another source. That the majority of Americans oppose SSM.

 

[Consecrated]

BillP:

Yes, but it’s moral code that we as a society agree on by consenus, n ot one dictated by the Catholic Church. Further, that consensus appears to be shifting toward permitting homosexuals to form civil unions.

If you really believe this is ok, then you are falling prey to the lie of Cultural Relativism.

You have said that you believe in objective morality. If you really do, then you would believe that morality to apply to ALL people, whether or not they believe in it, because it is outside of us, outside of time. It is Truth. It does not conform to us, we conform to Him. This is what objective morality is.

As Catholics, we believe that a perfect society would be one that confroms to Christ and recognizes Him as King. This is the ideal, no? I believe it is, and further I believe I have the duty to fight for it within America, my country.

You speak of rights (thank you for providing your definition). Do you believe that anyone has the “right” to sin? Sure, with freewill, we all have the ability, but does this mean we have a right? If you are truely Catholic, you will know that NO ONE has the right to sin, despite what one might think to the contrary. And NO state should have the “right” to guard anyone’s “right” to sin. Yet this is what is suggested by those who think legal civil unions for homosexuals are no big deal. It IS a big deal. We have more to think about than our own skins.

If we value our Faith, our God, our country, our world, our fellow human beings, we should hold fast to the ideal that the Catholic Church, as instituted by Christ, SHOULD have the ability to dictate our society’s moral code. Why? because it holds the divine deposit of the faith, it is INFALLIBLE in matters of morals. It didn’t arbitrarily “make up” some impossible moral code; rather, it guards and teaches the one given to us by God to make us happy. As Catholics, we should be defending our right to have a moral society, not society’s “right” to do what it pleases. In so doing, we are in fact building up society, not being little mini dictators. We cannot force anyone to follow Christ, but we sure as heck can and SHOULD make sure they know what they’re rejecting.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Well I thought I was speaking exclusively to other Catholics on this forum. If there are adherents of other religions about, I would be happy to address their beliefs as well, to whatever extent they try to dictate behavior to folks who don’t subscribe to the religion.

Well, I thought we were talking about the whole country here, not just catholics. No need to address the beleifs of these other major world religions, because they hold the same beliefs about this issue as Catholics do.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

Just as you can and seem to dismiss any of the studies and statistics I cite, I can do the same to you and say that this one study does not necessarily represent the majority of Americans. You can get any study to say anything you want and I actually heard the opposite was true from another source. That the majority of Americans oppose SSM.

I didn’t dismiss your polls because they weren’t true or accurate. I dismissed them because they weren’t relevant. If you’re arguing that the majority should rule onm the matter of SSM, then opinion polls are reevant.

you’re absolutely right that one poll is not determinative. Have a look at this link:

religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

I should have linked it in my post.

There is more than one poll. And they’re all moving in the same direction.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

I didn’t dismiss your polls because they weren’t true or accurate. I dismissed them because they weren’t relevant. If you’re arguing that the majority should rule onm the matter of SSM, then opinion polls are reevant.

you’re absolutely right that one poll is not determinative. Have a look at this link:

religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

I should have linked it in my post.

There is more than one poll. And they’re all moving in the same direction.

Yeah, I’ve seen this website too, and they seem to be pretty biased. Wouldn’t put too much faith in their polls either.

 

[felra]

So are you advocating civil legislation that prohibits non-Catholic divorced people from marrying again?

Originally Posted by felra

The Judeo-Chrisitian definition of marriage, the failure that divorce represents, and remarriage as RC canon allows for divorced Catholics.

No, they are not bound by the canon of a church that they do not belong to.

In what other ways do you want to impose Catholic morality?

Scheduling BCPs as controlled narcotics?
Criminalizing possession/use/distribution of Condoms?
Compulsory Mass on Sundays? (Can people go to their own Church as long as they go to some Church?)
Requiring all restauranst to remove meat from Friday menus?

How far does my obligation to fight “secular humanism” go?

I refer you to my signature for the answer to this.

 

[Consecrated]

BillP:

I didn’t dismiss your polls because they weren’t true or accurate. I dismissed them because they weren’t relevant. If you’re arguing that the majority should rule onm the matter of SSM, then opinion polls are reevant.

you’re absolutely right that one poll is not determinative. Have a look at this link:

religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

I should have linked it in my post.

There is more than one poll. And they’re all moving in the same direction.

Ultimately the Truth should rule on the matter of same sex union.

If it doesn’t, then the problem is that the majority has rejected the Truth. And that is the definition of a corrupt society. We should not stand by and accept it.