Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[Thomas48]

It’s not about being hypocrital, it’s simply putting others before yourself. Which I would think is an essential message of Christ.

Being a minority and an Eastern Catholic, I think it’s easier for me to understand this concept than perhaps those who are the majority class/ethnic group in a country who do not need to care about the views and values of others, because their views and values are always first in their mind and more than often first in society/politics.

Besides not seeing eye to eye on this matter, I think we’re having much miscommunication because your not understanding the wording of my posts. How is it hypocrital for me to state the issue of abortion is tied to issues of church vs state?

Are you also implying that those without religion or perhaps even of different religions are incable of morality? My friend, that’s a very dangerous ideal to hold.

I do not think we will be able to come it a concise agreement of the issue, minority communities thrive and most often survive on the concept of relativism. In my opinion it is only ignorance to hold onto centrism in both the society and in religion.

Centrism has no place in the Catholic Church nor is the Catholics Church a centrist Church. A perfect example is the existence of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches, who all hold different values, culture, views, philosophy, ethnicities but yet are all Catholic. A perfect example is my community. The Knanaya of the Syro Malabar Catholic Church have a ceremony on the eve of marriage where the bride is purified of her original sin from Eve, a ceremony that would essentially go against the idea of original sin in the Latin Church yet here we stand as accepted members of the Universal Church because of the idea of relativism.

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.

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

So do you and other Catholics go out an kill adulterers and woman who lie about their virginity status? Why follow some things and not the others? The idea that we pick and choose, is not a fallacy but a reality. I was born an Eastern Catholic and choose to stay so because of Christs message of love and peace.

 

[eddietoo]

under the teachings of Jesus Christ, same-sex marriage is a non-sequitur.

i believe however even under secular laws it is a non-sequitur.

the reason civil government sanctioned marriage to begin with was to help establish and maintain civil order. for example, to avoid issues related to inheritance and marriages too close in degree of consanguinity.

later, civil government, recognizing the common good related to the procreation and raising of children decided to encourage marriage by providing protections and benefits to those who married.

same-sex marriage produce none of the above reasons. it produces nothing of value to the common good. it is entirely unnecessary in relationship to the maintenance and establishment of civil order.

why should citizens provide funding to sanction a civil contract that has no value to the common good.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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 ?

That’s not the point of contention. It’s that you seem to want some (name removed by moderator)ut on what those consenting adults do.

Do you still maintain that?
.
.
.
Member of the Rational Rat Pack.

 

[Rau]

That’s not the point of contention. It’s that you seem to want some (name removed by moderator)ut on what those consenting adults do.

Do you still maintain that?

What that poster wrote was: "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"

Now, it might help if she explained herself, though she has not. I am guessing that she is referring to the impacts on others of the consequences of some (usually less than entirely responsible) sexual acts. Again, I’m guessing, but perhaps she has in mind:

• parents of young people who conceive of children and the parents take on some responsibility to care for those children (who are not able to do so themselves);
• the medical authorities (and those who fund them) and innocent parties who deal with STDs arising from non-monogamous sexual acts;
• children born to parents not ready to be parents, not ready to be married, not able to care adequately for children.

Perhaps she is highlighting the irresponsibility that may in some cases attach to sexual acts between “consenting adults” and which leads to some injustice for others. [Thus, being a “consenting adult” is not the full story in terms of one’s right to act in a particular way.] I don’t think she is literally proposing that she (or any third party) needs to be consulted prior to a sexual act, but rather highlighting the sense of responsibility that ought to accompany decisions to have sex. Again, I’m guessing, but its a point I think we can understand, though we might express it differently than did the poster.

 

[kesa82]

Now, it might help if she explained herself,

Why ? Since as your post subsequently seems to demonstrate , what I meant is clear. You understood me just fine.

I don’t think she is literally proposing that she (or any third party) needs to be consulted prior to a sexual act,

Who , seriously , would draw that conclusion ?

 

[Rau]

Why ? Since as your post subsequently seems to demonstrate , what I meant is clear. You understood me just fine.

After 6 or 8 re-readings.

Who , seriously , would draw that conclusion

The poster who kept suggesting just that.

 

[kesa82]

After 6 or 8 re-readings.

" Objectively, in reality, no sex act ever involves just two consenting adults. "

Care to explain what in this sentence was garbled or unintelligible ?

" on the contrary, it involves multiple third parties who get no vote, no say, who may very well be negatively impacted "

Care to explain what in this sentence was garbled or unintelligible ?

I wonder , because I’ve been in correspondence for 7 years with someone for whom English is a fourth language, living in another country , never set foot in this country , not of my party or Church , who is not my lover, spouse, family member , or on my payroll. She is not even , I would say, even a crony ; as her class and status is far superior to mine.
Yet, maybe three times in seven years , and thousands of pages of text , has she made such a claim.

But I hear such a claim at least once a week on discussion forums .

And more than once had a stranger jump in and say something like , " WTF ? I had no trouble understanding what he / she ( i.e. Me ) wrote ? "

I hear such a claim made at least three dozen times a week made against other posters — whose posts I understood just fine. And I don’t think I’m unusually perceptive.

At least a dozen times a week I could make the same claim about someones post because they are a lousy speller , a lousy writer , or their perspective is uncommon / little known .
I could , but don’t .
Why ?

–because I did understand them.

– because it’s a sophomoric debating trick.

My suspicion ?

" …NO SEX ACT… " ( i.e. ANY sex act ) is a statement you don’t like any more than does the gay activist.

 

[kesa82]

Now, it might help if she explained herself,

On second thought , here you go , copy-pasted from a letter to a friend ;

" — Oh , that is all there really was to that thread , as far as my participation went , anyway.

It was a thread about gay marriage . * roll eyes *

I remember when I was in school — just 20 years ago — that is, not long ago , You, Yourself, have lived longer than 20 years , and so are perhaps coming to the realization that 20 years is not a long time — to admit one was gay was virtually a suicidal act.
Such a person would immediately be ostracized , and ostracized completely. They would be picked on , bullied , or even worse.

Twice I saw people beaten up on this account , in front of school teachers. What did the school teachers do ? They pretended they didn’t see it.
( So did I . I didn’t feel like slitting my own throat. )

Perhaps worse , occasionally someone would get labelled as gay. It might not have been true. Just someone deliberately starting a vicious rumor, or someone playing mind - reader when they were not.
And the person so labelled was in for it too . Guilty people always claim to be innocent , don’t you know ?

I felt sorry for them . Especially given that it wasn’t like they killed anyone , raped anyone, or robbed a bank.

But I don’t feel sorry for them anymore .

Now homosexuality is licit , or even chic.

So what you have now are both heterosexuals and homosexuals boasting of what splendid fellows they are , how much better they are than — ( fill in the blank ) .

I remember how it was 20 years ago. And the self-serving , self-flattering platitudes of both utterly disgust me. "

 

[Rau]

I felt sorry for them . Especially given that it wasn’t like they killed anyone , raped anyone, or robbed a bank.

But I don’t feel sorry for them anymore .

Now homosexuality is licit , or even chic.

So what you have now are both heterosexuals and homosexuals boasting of what splendid fellows they are , how much better they are than — ( fill in the blank ) .

I remember how it was 20 years ago. And the self-serving , self-flattering platitudes of both utterly disgust me. "

Sorry Kesa, now I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Rau]

" Objectively, in reality, no sex act ever involves just two consenting adults. "

Care to explain what in this sentence was garbled or unintelligible ?

" on the contrary, it involves multiple third parties who get no vote, no say, who may very well be negatively impacted "

Care to explain what in this sentence was garbled or unintelligible ?

Well you see, actually, the bulk of them (sex acts) do not involve - either in the act itself, or subsequently, other persons. They may well have the potential to involve “multiple third parties” (in an adverse way) - but this is primarily an issue for those irresponsible acts I mentioned in the earlier post.

" …NO SEX ACT… " ( i.e. ANY sex act ) is a statement you don’t like any more than does the gay activist.

I don’t have a particular dislike for the statement, other than I think it did not particularly well express your intended meaning.

 

[Bradskii]

" Objectively, in reality, no sex act ever involves just two consenting adults. "

Care to explain what in this sentence was garbled or unintelligible ?

" on the contrary, it involves multiple third parties who get no vote, no say, who may very well be negatively impacted "

Care to explain what in this sentence was garbled or unintelligible ?

None of it is garbled. In regard to it being unintelligible, I cannot believe it means what you say. So in that case, it is puzzling.

Sex acts invariable involve 2 consenting adults. Sometimes that is not the case, but you explicitly said ‘no sex act’, which is clearly absurd.

Neither do the vast majority involve ‘third parties’ which you claim. And you appear (and this is definately what is unclear) to suggest that third parties have ‘no vote, no say’ in the act. What exactly are you suggesting here?

If you had said that SOME sex acts have a negative affect on some people and in certain circumstances and in certain conditions, a third party might have a right to involve themselves (a parent of an underaged child perhaps), then I would agree. But that is not what you said.

Perhaps you might want to reword it.

.
.
.
Member of the Rational Rat Pack.

 

[Hockeygurl]

I’m sorry, but that’s just your opinion. Fortunately here in America we have freedom of religion. Others do not share your viewpoint, nor should they be forced to. Unless you want to go back to the days of the Inquisition. We have to let it be in God’s hands and that’s just the way it is. Morality cannot and should not be legislated. We cannot tell others that they have to abide by Catholic teaching. And that’s OK. We must let others make their own choices and know that any consequences that result are solely on that person.

If it’s loving to tell a gay person that they must be celibate then is it loving to tell an overweight person that they must lose weight? Is it loving to follow old testament rules regarding rape in the country versus the city?

One thing to note, I see many people posting on this forum about abortion. But I would like to know what they are actually doing to stop it. Are they offering their home to unwed mothers? Are they offering to pay for education so a mother can afford to care for the child? Are they buying the child clothes, books, formula and diapers?

It’s one thing to have a stance and speak out, but without action it means nothing.

 

[Rau]

We have to let it be in God’s hands and that’s just the way it is. Morality cannot and should not be legislated. We cannot tell others that they have to abide by Catholic teaching.

Correct. But we do have to decide what the public institution of marriage is about.

 

[PJM]

Sadly you, the bible and our GOD disagree on this issue. Friend, who do you think has a better chance of being right?

 

[XndrK]

Okay, I’m actually on your side here, but that is the least useful answer.

 

[XndrK]

Why do we even have a civil institution of marriage? Anymore, it seems completely arbitrary, makes even more bureaucratic headaches than is necessary in a civil society, and is just a way to foist ideas about what marriage should be onto other people.

It made sense back when marriage was commonly understood to be about the creation and maintenance of a family, complete with children. But since the Sexual Revolution and especially the advent of no-fault divorce, there seems to be no reason why the government should lower taxes for two people who want to have sex with one another for an indefinite period of time.

So I say that the Church should stand its ground and point to the truth of the matter – namely, that homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms – and the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, because there’s no reason it should be a state issue.

 

[Rau]

Why do we even have a civil institution of marriage? Anymore, it seems completely arbitrary, makes even more bureaucratic headaches than is necessary in a civil society, and is just a way to foist ideas about what marriage should be onto other people.

That seems to be a view born of relatively recent developments. Marriage has been supported via civil legal frameworks for a very long time and for what I would have thought were generally useful reasons connected with the establishment of families, lineage, care of children, inheritance and so on.

It made sense back when marriage was commonly understood to be about the creation and maintenance of a family, complete with children. But since the Sexual Revolution and especially the advent of no-fault divorce, there seems to be no reason why the government should lower taxes for two people who want to have sex with one another for an indefinite period of time.

It is certainly arguable that society (government) should exercise some discrimination in the forms of support it offers to various kinds of relationships. Generally of course, it does. Regarding SSM and man+woman marriage as the same is a curious exception, but it is what the SSM proponents demanded.

 

[Rau]

So I say that the Church should stand its ground and point to the truth of the matter – namely, that homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms – and the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, because there’s no reason it should be a state issue.

The first position is a reasonable one to hold (though there are other reasons to view SSM as inappropriate), but you’ve not made a case for the second.

 

[frobert]

t is certainly arguable that society (government) should exercise some discrimination in the forms of support it offers to various kinds of relationships. Generally of course, it does. Regarding SSM and man+woman marriage as the same is a curious exception, but it is what the SSM proponents demanded.

Why is it a curious exception?

 

[XndrK]

What is civil marriage even used for anymore? It made sense when marriage was commonly associated to mean “a man and a woman coming together to form a family with children”, which marriage definitely does mean, but anymore it’s just the state sanctioning two people who want to be romantic for some indefinite period and want the tax breaks and inheritance laws that go with it.

But since the advent of no-fault divorce especially, that makes no sense anymore. Granted, also civilly recognizing same-sex relationships as valid for marriage is also bad, but it’s just compounding the problem. From both a secular and a church perspective, civil marriage hasn’t made sense for 40 years. SSM just compounds the madness.

My solution is to have the state back off and stop recognizing marriage at all until the Church rebuilds the institution and makes marriage mean family again. Then bring civil marriage back on the table.