Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[JimG]

One might abolish the concept of “gender” but one cannot abolish the idea of sex. A person is either male or female—genetically, anatomically, physically. We can’t deny reality, although the attempt to do so is becoming increasingly popular.

Marriage involves sexual complementary, which is bodily apparent. A man and a woman are physically capable of specifically marital intercourse, capable of conjugal relations. A same sex couple will never be. Such a union can never be conjugal, can never be marital, can never be unitive, can never be procreative, can never be marriage. We can pretend that something that is not marriage is marriage, but it is a fantasy, not a reality. Mistaking fantasy for reality is not good for individuals or society.

 

[Trader]

I think you miss the whole point of us all being a prophetic people by virtue of our baptism. Prophecy is not about foretelling the future; it is about speaking for God, who claims us as His own. We are not equipped to judge the intentions and inner culpability of others, but we absolutely have been given knowledge of what God has told us is evil in His sight.

Being a prophet has never been easy. Read about Jeremiah and Jonah, who tried to resist God’s call. Daniel and John the Baptist suffered greatly for proclaiming Truth to those who did not agree.

At the very least we should all be proclaiming the truth about marriage by our good example. Unfortunately it was heterosexuals who gave marriage a bad name through infidelity, contraception, and divorce. I suspect the percentage of people who support same sex “marriage” will eventually approach the level of those who support contraception. When you break the connections between marriage, sex, and procreation, it is the logical conclusion.

 

[anon96423383]

my post is at the level of societies’ decision to allow gay marriages.[/B] It’s the decision of society to allow gay marriages that I’m referring to. As I already stated, it’s our job to preach the bible to them so that they may see the Light! Again, I’m in agreement with the Church and I oppose gay marriages from a religious perspective, but as for our society’s decision to allow gay marriages, it is there that I say “let it be.” It a decision on behalf of society that I doubt will likely change.

I would just suggest, this is why Jesus says, in the end, few are saved, and the majority go to hell. The natural consequence of people not fearing God OR hell.

 

[Bradskii]

" Two consenting adults " is a legal construct .

A popular legal construct because it happens to be convenient for many .

Objectively, in reality, no sex act ever involves just two consenting adults. on the contrary, it involves multiple third parties who get no vote, no say, who may very well be negatively impacted

That’s funny. When I was making love to my partner on the weekend, I didn’t feel the need to have people vote on it. Would you have liked to have some (name removed by moderator)ut, Kesa? I’m keen to hear your thoughts.
.
.
.
.
Member of the Rational Rat Pack

 

[Tis_Bearself]

" Two consenting adults " is a legal construct .

A popular legal construct because it happens to be convenient for many .

Objectively, in reality, no sex act ever involves just two consenting adults. on the contrary, it involves multiple third parties who get no vote, no say, who may very well be negatively impacted

As for a fair marriage law, that, likewise, is an, albeit popular, FICTION. .

You simply cannot write a marriage law that will not disadvantage some persons, some groups.

Objectively, ANY law is going to “disadvantage some persons, some groups”. A law against stealing is going to be unfair to thieves, including those who may be thieving out of some sort of economic disparity or economic necessity. Laws are created for the orderly operation of society, and for order to be kept, somebody is going to be prevented from taking a certain action or having (name removed by moderator)ut on a certain matter.

As for “two consenting adults” being a legal construct, while it is true that it might affect other people such as immediate family members (parents, in-laws, kids), former or current spouses or partners, or taxpayers if these two have a child or contract some venereal disease and then need to get public assistance as a resutl, it’s simply not practical to go out and take a poll and a committee vote every time two people want to get together in this world. This is not a matter of “convenience”, it is simply unworkable to get the (name removed by moderator)ut from everyone who coud potentially feel affected by John and Judy, or John and Jason, having sex this evening.

 

[kesa82]

That’s funny. When I was making love to my partner on the weekend, I didn’t feel the need to have people vote on it. Would you have liked to have some (name removed by moderator)ut, Kesa? I’m keen to hear your thoughts.

That’s funny , I don’t know how many people , ON EITHER SIDE of this issue, in this thread, are essentially asserting that they are entitled to (name removed by moderator)ut on the matter.

So you might as well ask any number of them .

 

[kesa82]

As for “two consenting adults” being a legal construct, while it is true that it might affect other people such as immediate family members (parents, in-laws, kids), former or current spouses or partners, or taxpayers if these two have a child or contract some venereal disease and then need to get public assistance as a resutl,

— And so on , and so on . Correct.

it’s simply not practical to go out and take a poll and a committee vote every time two people want to get together in this world. This is not a matter of “convenience”, it is simply unworkable to get the (name removed by moderator)ut from everyone who coud potentially feel affected by John and Judy, or John and Jason, having sex this evening.

G. K. Chesterton once said, " those who will not be ruled by the ten commandments , will be ruled by the ten thousand commandments . " Which is , very much so , the situation at present . ( That is, the latter , "ten thousand commandments " circumstance . )

So, I guess , you are preaching to the choir ?

Or…uh…what are you saying?

Are you saying the current practice of polls and committee votes IS the way to go ?

 

[josh987654321]

That’s funny. When I was making love to my partner on the weekend, I didn’t feel the need to have people vote on it. Would you have liked to have some (name removed by moderator)ut, Kesa? I’m keen to hear your thoughts.

.

.

.

.

Member of the Rational Rat Pack

For someone who claims to be rational, this sure is an irrational thing to say, we are not voting on whether sodomy should be illegal or not, we are voting on whether marriage should be redefined or not. Get it right at least.

 

[josh987654321]

So how do we as Catholics pick and choose some things in the Bible but not others? The holy text defines homosexuality as immoral but it also states that we must kill adulterers and stone woman to death who lie about their virginity status.

Another fallacy. If we follow that logic, then Adultery is also no longer a sin and neither is anything else. If you think the Church is ‘picking’ and ‘choosing’ then why would you call yourself a Catholic at all or follow anything the Church teaches? So it’s really people like yourself who use these fallacious arguments who are really ‘picking’ and ‘choosing’ and encouraging others to do likewise.

Matthew 5:17-19

The Law and the Prophets
17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

John 8:3-11

The Woman Caught in Adultery
3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”

Thus why sodomy should not be criminalized, but as Catholics yes we do have a duty to uphold the definition of marriage.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

It is important to note also, that even tho the Church may take a stance against same-sex marriage, countries such as America have a concept known as separation of Church and State, so any of our religious affiliations should never affect our politics. Why should our Catholic and Christian values have more priority in a countries that hold multi-faith and even irreligious citizens, that is just not fair nor equal towards all people of the state.

It’s one thing for you to vote ‘no’ and it results in a ‘yes’ it’s a totally different story for you to support it or vote ‘yes’. The latter would make you a heretic.

Do you also hold the same view when it comes to abortion?

Personally I’m not in favor of someone killing you, but by your logic, if someone else wants to do it, I will not say ‘no’ because of separation of Church and State, like you said, it would be wrong of me to impose that belief on your murderer. Right?

 

[Rau]

For someone who claims to be rational, this sure is an irrational thing to say, we are not voting on whether sodomy should be illegal or not, we are voting on whether marriage should be redefined or not. Get it right at least.

Quite right. The debate is repeatedly misrepresented as a “vote” on something which it is not. The preferable solution would have been for another legal framework to have been implemented and recognised globally. That would be a relationship not called marriage, and not presumptively sexual.

 

[Thomas48]

You do not need to be religious in order to understand that murder is wrong, separation of church and state should have nothing to do with your opinion on that matter. Atheists and non-believers would also agree that murder is wrong. Morality and religion are not synonyms, tho they can correlate.

However issues such as abortions are controversial and tie towards separation of church and state. Personally, I am pro-choice with limitations set on the stage of pregnancy. Being an Eastern Catholic I can personally believe that yes God bestows the soul and that this child is pre-destined but that does not mean that my neighbors who may be Hindu, Atheists, Jains, Sikhs, etc all believe the same way I do. Do I have the right to force them to believe how I believe? No I do not because this is not Medieval Europe where the Church countrols all citizens no matter what their creed may be. I believe my neighbors of different creeds should be able to choose based on their faith on the matter, sure I can have my opinion based on my faith but in no way should this be law for countries who have multi-faith communities.

Similar to this, tho my Church may hold to the belief that marriage is the sacred bond between man and woman, members of a multi-cultural, multi-religious, and multi- ethnic community may not all believe this way. In no way should the beliefs of one creed supersede the others in countries such as America that are built and continue to strive on the concept of diversity. Laws and policies over issues such as these should always take a neutral platform, allowing people to freely believe what they want to believe.

 

[josh987654321]

You do not need to be religious in order to understand that murder is wrong,

You’d think.

However issues such as abortions are controversial and tie towards separation of church and state.

Well isn’t that hypocritical of you.

Laws and policies over issues such as these should always take a neutral platform, allowing people to freely believe what they want to believe.

And I suppose your the arbiter of this ‘neutral’ platform that you speak of? we already know it involves the mass murder of children in their mothers wombs… (oh, and the sale/donation of their body parts). I guess that’s neutrality for ya.

What annoys me most about such nonsensical views, is that it is really two faced, you claim on one hand to believe one thing, yet you vote and advocate the total opposite.

Pope Benedict vs. the Dictatorship of Relativism
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/benjamin-wiker/benedict-vs.-the-dictatorship-of-relativism

In his homily to the 2005 conclave that would soon choose him as the successor of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned those attending, “We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

This is a warning that Pope Benedict has not tired of repeating during his pontificate.

Relativism is a poison. It attacks our most human capacity, the capacity to seek and know the truth, including the moral truth. A dictatorship of relativism imposes by real cultural force (and even by political force) a no-standard standard, a command that all must imbibe this poison.

At first blush, it would seem contradictory to have relativism united to dictatorship. Isn’t relativism just a healthy dose of humility, a way to cool the intellectual or religious hot-head who insists, “I, only I, have the truth”?

The proof of the pudding of relativism is in the eating. How has it fared?

“In recent years I find myself noting,” Cardinal Ratzinger said in his Without Roots, “how the more relativism becomes the generally accepted way of thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance. Political correctness … seeks to establish the domain of a single way of thinking and speaking. Its relativism creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past. It presents itself as the only way to think and speak — if, that is, one wishes to stay in fashion. … I think it is vital that we oppose this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment, which threatens freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion.”

That last point is key. While appearing to be the very essence of neutrality and equity — “all views are equal and equally valid” — it actually undermines both the freedom of thought and the freedom of religion. As to the latter, it does so (ironically) as a new religion itself, “a new ‘denomination’ that places restrictions on religious convictions and seeks to subordinate all religions to the super-dogma of relativism.”

As Cardinal Ratzinger noted in his Truth and Tolerance, “relativism … in certain respects has become the real religion of modern man.” It has become, especially in Europe, but now increasingly in America, the religion that stands at the heart of modern secular civilization in the way that Christianity defined the heart of Christendom.

It is the religion, Pope Benedict insists, which the Church must combat in the third millennium for the sake of civilization itself. A civilization built upon dogmatic relativism is one that ensures its own destruction. It is also a civilization in which Christianity — challenging dogmatic relativism with the proclamation that Jesus Christ himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life — must be persecuted.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Bradskii]

So you might as well ask any number of them .

As you appeared to be complaining that you had no say when two consenting adults had sex, I thought I’d ask you. Would you like some (name removed by moderator)ut?

 

[Bradskii]

For someone who claims to be rational, this sure is an irrational thing to say, we are not voting on whether sodomy should be illegal or not, we are voting on whether marriage should be redefined or not. Get it right at least.

There are those on the forum who can chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time.

As well as same sex marriage, Kesa seemed keen on having an (name removed by moderator)ut on what people do in their bedroom. I really don’t care what he gets up to so I wondered why he was interested in what I do.

I’m actually not sure what sex has to do with the discussion in any case. You might be aware that people can be intimate with each other already. Whatever gender they happen to be. And can also adopt children, whether married or not.
.
.
.

Member of the Rational Rat Pack

 

[kesa82]

As you appeared to be complaining

I was stating a fact.

For my part, you appear to be dancing around that fact instead of addressing it.

 

[kesa82]

I’m actually not sure what sex has to do with the discussion in any case.

Oh I do agree.

Hence, why i wonder that simply stating that , " two consenting adults " is a legal construct, seems to bother some people. If so , why would that be ?

 

[Rau]

I’m actually not sure what sex has to do with the discussion in any case. You might be aware that people can be intimate with each other already. Whatever gender they happen to be. And can also adopt children, whether married or not.

Marriage is a sexual relationship. That presumption underpins why certain pairs (eg too closely related) are not permitted to marry. I understand the rationale for “marriage” being recognized by governments. I can agree that other kinds of relationships warrant government recognition and support. I just don’t agree that they also need to be deemed “marriage” (i.e. Sexual) in order to attract that recognition.

 

[Rau]

" Two consenting adults " is a legal construct .

A popular legal construct because it happens to be convenient for many .

Objectively, in reality, no sex act ever involves just two consenting adults. on the contrary, it involves multiple third parties who get no vote, no say, who may very well be negatively impacted

As for a fair marriage law, that, likewise, is an, albeit popular, FICTION. .

You simply cannot write a marriage law that will not disadvantage some persons, some groups.

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make and it’s connection with the topic.

 

[josh987654321]

There are those on the forum who can chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time.

?

As well as same sex marriage, Kesa seemed keen on having an (name removed by moderator)ut on what people do in their bedroom.

My apologies, I thought you were saying that with the upcoming Plebiscite on marriage in Australia in mind, in which I hear such fallacies used all the time.

You might be aware that people can be intimate with each other already.

I am aware, which is why I wanted to point out that nobody is voting on that in regards to the upcoming plebiscite on marriage in Australia. Yet such fallacies are used so often. so called ‘same sex marriage’ does not legalize or criminalize a homosexual union. Homosexual unions are already legal and nobody is trying to legally change that.

We are trying to legally preserve marriage as the union between a man and a woman as the basic foundation of any society, since the only reason government has anything to do with it is for the procreation and rearing of children, and it is a social good for government to encourage that union of biological mother and father for the children that are born of the fruit of that union.

And can also adopt children, whether married or not.

In regards to adoption, this is usually a ruse, since most don’t adopt, and a loving couple of mother and father should receive priority, since as far as possible a child should have as close to what they unfortunately missed out on.

If same sex marriage goes through, next step will be lifting the ban on commercial surrogacy (Among a host of other serious consequences such as the deceptive ‘safe schools’ program etc), so that homosexual couples can use IVF and surrogacy to have children. which turns women’s wombs into commodities as well as babies and brings a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father from the get go which makes it gravely immoral!

I don’t know whether reasoning with you is even possible though, since I think you’ve already made your mind up on this issue as with other posts, nevertheless I tried. It amazes me though, that people who claim to be rational have shown the most irrationality in their support of same sex marriage and abortion.

“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” - Adolf Hitler

Just like the slogans ‘Marriage equality’ ‘love is love’ and ‘Pro-choice’ as if repeating these outrageous vague fallacies over and over again somehow made them true.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh