Same sex marriages...how the meaning of marriage began to erode

[iamrefreshed]

true–and it also has nothing to do with what that show and its panel were pointing out…that the decay of marriage and the original intent of it has been going on for some time.

I’m not in disagreement with the premise brought up in that show.

But, unless I am reading your posts incorrectly, you have stated that love between two men or two women is NOT wrong but that they cannot be married until laws are changed?

I fail to see how that train of thought will bring about a reversal of the moral decay discussed on EWTN.

Am I mis-understanding your posts?

 

[Kay_Cee]

I would like to listen to this program (can’t watch it since my cable company has removed EWTN from its lineup ). I’ve tried searching the EWTN archives but without success. Has anybody else been able to find it?

 

[tvdxer]

Here is where it started. I was there.

In the 1960s, everyone I knew was taught to value chastity, decency, modesty, in word and dress, and politeness toward all ages. Marriage was a sacred agreement between a man and a woman, a sacrament. No, I’m not suggesting anything was perfect. Young girls and boys experienced appropriate shame in certain situations and were aware of sin.

The idea was to sell certain “alternative” lifestyles.

1960 The birth control Pill.
1968 The Hippie Movement and Gay Rights Movement start simultaneously. The anti-family philosophy had already begun with books like The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, a Communist, who referred to the family as a “comfortable concentration camp.”
The Hippies begin to promote illegal and dangerous drugs as cool and even beneficial (mind expanding). Taking LSD leads to auditory and visual hallucinations, self-mutilation and suicide, for example.
No-Fault Divorce begins in California.
A Hippie friend of mine tells me: “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.”
1970 Hard core pornography appears and with it, the beginning of the spread of so-called Adult Bookstores.
1973 Abortion legalized but only in case of emergency.
1978 The National Organization for Women tells all women that they are victims. That all men are the enemy. Feminist Gloria Steinem tells women: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
They also push for the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have helped the gay movement, it fails.
NOW drives a wedge of suspicion, mistrust and fear between men and women that still exists today.
1980s No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country. If you have no kids, you can solve your problems for $80. Porn appears on cable and hotels and motels.
1990s You can no longer tell a Christian from a non-Christian. Partial nudity and profanity appear on network TV. The internet multiplies the access level to pornography.
2000s NOW’s position on pornography is that they have no position. Prostitution is sold as a “victimless crime,” divorce is widespread, with many people on marriage 2 or 3. Sex before marriage is widespread and the consequences are not considered. Abortion has become abortion on demand.
Gay Rights is no longer about Gay Rights but about mix and match, anything goes rights. In a document titled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” signed by Gloria Steinem, among others, the goal is multiple sex partners.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

Abortion has been available “on demand” since the early 1970’s. The Roe v. Wade case DID NOT only permit abortion for emergency reasons.

In addition, pre-marital (and extra-marital) sex has probably been common for thousands of years. Nothing new about that. Back around the 1500’s, it was a common belief among the laity, at least in certain places, that “simple fornication” between two unmarried partners was not a mortal sin (the church tried to correct it, of course).

 

[Daddums]

Abortion has been available “on demand” since the early 1970’s. The Roe v. Wade case DID NOT only permit abortion for emergency reasons.

In addition, pre-marital (and extra-marital) sex has probably been common for thousands of years. Nothing new about that. Back around the 1500’s, it was a common belief among the laity, at least in certain places, that “simple fornication” between two unmarried partners was not a mortal sin (the church tried to correct it, of course).

You must be very young. Let me assure you that pre-marital sex was not always common. It has only become so in the past 30-40 years.

Daddums

 

[lintpick1]

how do we fight back?

IMO, one way to fight back is voting, with Primaries coming up, voting participation of Catholics is vital. There’s “70 million” Catholics in America, our vote pulls a lot of weight. If only Washington cared…

 

[Dale_M]

I’ve tried searching the EWTN archives but without success. Has anybody else been able to find it?

I have difficulty finding just about everything on the EWTN website. Somehow their layout and the layout of my brain just don’t fit.

You could order a copy of the video tape or DVD directly from Franciscan University: bookstore.franciscan.edu/ePOS?this_category=656&store=421&listtype=begin&form=shared3%2fgm%2fbrowse%2ehtml&design=421&session_info=D0wyzEqCqf49GT0fdbWOKbCfqDSMeqRxz%2bwq8P8BmZ45q6c5GVPOgW7B5XNh2LA6ndDFYcshS8w5R6WILg7Fi%2fP9znCZ5FwsDdi7MWVTg9T8FWYr6q1TDQ%3d%3d

Or if you know of someone who is willing to record the program for you, it will be rebroadcast Friday January 11 @ 4 a.m.
(but that doesn’t give you much time!)

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

The best way to fight back? Show them that religion is more than where you go (or don’t go) on Sunday mornings, religion is a way of life. Show the world that science cannot replace religion. Gandhi once said that his only problem with Christianity is that Christians are so unlike Christ. We just need to try harder, stop making excuses for ourselves and for others. They will know we are Christians by our love…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

One of the scholars (it wasn’t Dr Regis Martin who is often a regular on that show–I just checked EWTN’s site and can’t find the person who was on?) basically said that the onset of SS marriages/civil unions, did not happen over night, or even over a decade. He said that what happened back in the 60’s was the common sentiment of…‘do what makes YOU feel good. do what you like, when you like, etc…’ Over time, that sentiment started translating into our marriages.

I understand what is being said here, but I think this is a bit short-sighted and relies too much on the common (and misleading) platitudes of the conservative/liberal divide. With regard to marriage and sexuality, developments in the '60’s were a result of a far older idea that was coming into its own on a larger scale: the idea of romantic love which was “invented” (or at least best articulated) sometime around the development of the troubador tradition in the early middle ages.

So long as marriage was a purely social institution, questions of love and romance were quite immaterial. It was nice if they were there, but the real purpose of marriage was strengthening socio-economic ties and relations. To be honest, the arranged marriage and polygamous marriage represent the institution working at its social best. Even when the idea of romantic love began to gain some currency, however, marriage was still respected as a social institution–take the old story of Tristan and Isolde, a cautionary tale warning of the power of romantic love in the face of the vows of marriage. The courtly love tradition (which is perhaps best exemplified in Dante’s figure of Beatrice) represents romantic love as the striving for an ideal. One strives through the object of affection. And one’s married partner may have nothing whatsoever to do with such romantic relationships (which were encouraged to remain platonic).

Once people gradually believed that their marriages should be romantic, the social purposes of marriage took a back seat to the individual. And once it was discovered (not without some loss of naivete) that romance and marriage do not always mix, divorce rates began to climb.

And because marriage has become the seal on a romantic relationship rather than the keystone of a social contract, various permutations of romantic relationships (which were previously untroubled by questions of whether or not marriage was an option for them, given that their relationships were not social, or which served entirely different social functions–such as classical Greek pederasty) began clamoring to be recognized through marriage.

In order to restore marriage to its previous position as a social institution, romance and marriage must be divorced from each other: the idea of two individuals marrying must be eliminated and replaced by the idea of two families joining together against the backdrop of a larger socio-economic milieu. Until then, marriage as we know it today should not be understood to serve a general social purpose (such an understanding is purely sentimental as the only social purpose it could possibly serve, in the case of middle class heterosexual marriage, is production of children to replenish the work force; but people can procreate without marriage–perhaps it is only inter-marrying dynasties that can prove to have any real social function these days), nor should it be surprising if homosexuals wish to marry.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Riley259]

I’m not sure if this topic should be placed here, so please move it mods if I put it in the wrong spot. (thank you)

I watched the most fascinating show last night on EWTN…Anyone else catch it? It was calling…The Meaning of Marriage, with Scott Hahn, and two other theology scholars and a priest (The show is actually Franciscan University Presents)

One of the scholars (it wasn’t Dr Regis Martin who is often a regular on that show–I just checked EWTN’s site and can’t find the person who was on?) basically said that the onset of SS marriages/civil unions, did not happen over night, or even over a decade. He said that what happened back in the 60’s was the common sentiment of…‘do what makes YOU feel good. do what you like, when you like, etc…’ Over time, that sentiment started translating into our marriages. Divorce started to soar, more and more couples stopped marrying and started cohabitating, more children born out of wedlock, the rise of abortion and birth control…and so on. Adults simply did not want to take responsibility for their sexuality, thus we see the erosion of what marriage was ‘meant to be.’ Now fast forward to now, where the SS marriage cases are being brought forth, and the scholar said that the preceding things did not ‘cause’ same sex couples to feel they have a right to marry, but really was the ‘effect.’ (I thought that was a brilliant statement)

He went on to say that what started to happen in society, is that homosexual people started to see that heterosexuals were ‘able to do whatever they choose, so why are we being held back from the right to marry?’ And, so he said when you step back and look over the past 50 to 60 years of our history, one can see that the term marriage began to erode, and now it really doesn’t have the same significance it once had, say back in the 40’s. So, SS couples are not trying to change marriage, it has been changing and eroding for decades.

I wanted to post this, because I thought it was a fascinating concept, and also to see if any of you caught this program last night?

It was a great program. The guest was Dr. Robert George who is a professor at Princeton. He also appeared on the show “Faith and Culture” with Colleen Campbell and talked about this same subject.