Selected lame gay "marriage" cliches refuted

[JacarandaPurple]

sw85, what an intelligent, beautifully-realized snarkfest. I applaud and thank you!

 

[sedonaman]

…And MANY societies (including American history prior to the late 1960’s) had always outlawed inter-ethnic couples. Could you explain where inter-ethnic couples were the social norm and homosexuals were not?

Yes, in the early history of the United States. There were a number of marriages between white explorer men and American Indian women. Pocahontas and John Rolph, Sacagawea and Toussaint Charbonneau, are two examples. Pocahontas actually traveled to England where she was a celebrity, not an outcast, and certainly not an “outlaw”. I don’t recall any cases of homosexual arrangements in those times, no matter what you might have seen in the movies.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

sw, it’s clear that you and whoever it is that created that video are talking right past each other–the foundations upon which your value systems are based are entirely different, and that fundamental fact cannot be stressed enough. Moreover, those entirely different foundations are what makes the video producer a “good American” and you a “good Catholic.”

(Before we start, I want to mention here in this parenthetical that you, sw, are an extraordinarily intelligent and rigorously thoughtful person…and the disdain in which you hold this fellow as demonstrated in the opening of your post is not worthy of your intelligence, your thoughtfulness, or your Catholic identity. And while let’s say that’s largely beside the point for the purposes of this discussion, it should be noted that such disdain colors your rhetoric and detracts from the moral force of your arguments. I mention this just as a word of caution as it is clear that you know how intelligent you are, and clear, too, that you know that you can use your intelligence as a weapon should you so choose. I would argue that you should resist employing your intelligence in such a way for the obvious reasons.)

Which maybe would make sense if you began with the predicate “It’s always and everywhere wrong to treat any anyone differently than anyone else for any reason.”

This is precisely the video-producer’s idea, and it comes from a misapprehension of the nature of equality, as you correctly point out.

But who believes that? It’s obvious nonsense, but I suppose the fact that it’s stupid won’t stop from embracing it in order to appease homosexuals.

Many people believe that–equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are more and more confused in the modern liberal state. In many ways, the confusion is inevitable as democracy tends to quantify rather than qualify the individual. And appeasement of homosexuals isn’t the issue–it has everything to do with the evolution of the modern liberal state.

Surely we can all see that this principle is obviously wrong and, rigorously applied, would lead to extreme social absurdity and moral evils none of us would willingly tolerate.

But the principle he’s articulating isn’t actually a version of “we should be able to marry whomever we like.” The principle is: no one has any business imposing on the free exercise of any individual’s liberty. It is the fundamental principle behind market liberalism (i.e. free markets) and social liberalism. It is the reason why the modern liberal state cannot and will not ever espouse any particular value or virtue or creed as absolute apart from it’s own value of individual liberty.

But the separation of church/state thing always interests me because it calls to mind the fact that most of these people have no idea what the plain wording of the Constitution actually is. Consider the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”

You are correct that the first amendment is against established religion. However, given the recent USCCB statement on the health mandate in which the council’s objections were couched largely in terms of the modern liberal state (which served to weaken or relativize any argument it would make on the basis of a revealed or even natural law morality as the council made it’s appeal to the goddess of Liberty and religious freedom, not to the authority of God or his church over such matters), it is clear that agreeing to the terms of and thereby colluding with the modern liberal state is a real temptation for religious people. Observing a stricter separation between church and state than the one the founders imagined would probably not be such a bad thing when it comes to maintaining the credibility of the church.

It is, moreover, a deeply hypocritical lie. As I demonstrate here, these pro-gay “marriage” arguments inevitably ALWAYS reduce to utilitarianism, the preferred ethical system of the left, according to which good is that which maximizes pleasure.

What is to be maximized are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Insofar as a value system or creed impinges on any of these three (and they are understood in terms of individual self-actualization, let’s be clear), then that value system or creed is irrelevant or dangerous to the state and will be either ignored or suppressed.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

In other words, they don’t object to “legislating morality.” They object to legislating non-utilitarian morality, i.e., any moral system that isn’t their moral system. It is stealth establishment of a false religion with Jeremy Bentham as its prophet. To Hell with it – literally.

They do object to legislating morality, at least morality conceived of in positive terms. The idea behind both market liberalism and social liberalism is that the state cannot put a limit on the ability of the individual to self-actualize unless the self-actualization of the individual impinges on the liberty of another (i.e. via murder, theft, etc.–which is to say that the state doesn’t legislate against such things on the basis of moral principle or charity, but on the basis of broadly protecting individual liberty). An individual may freely limit him or herself (i.e., by subscribing to the doctrines and dogmas of a religion), but even such self-limitation is seen by the state as an exercise of the individual’s liberty, not as an act of love, a response to grace, or anything else.

Indeed, the ideology of liberty is a false, completely luciferian religion and has much more in common with imperial Roman state religion than with something that is compatible with Christianity. There is a clear difference between liberty in Christ, which is not only freedom from sin, but freedom to be who we are meant to be by grace, the freedom to become sons and daughters of God; and the liberty of the state, which is freedom to “be who you are” and do whatever you like insofar as you don’t hurt anyone. But many Christians are prone to confuse the two. To them, I would recommend a quick read of John’s Apocalypse and Jesus’ words regarding serving two masters.

In other words, marriage is a fact arising from our natures, a thing that cannot be changed; a thing endowed with meaning by virtue of the order of being of which we are a part.

The leftist attitude: “Marriage is just another contract people should be free to enter into for any reason or none at all, and terminate at will.”

From his perspective, the video-producer is not wrong to bring up the proliferation of divorce as it reveals marriage to be a purely indivdual and not a social institution. It is simply a fact that within the last century or so, marriage has been completely redefined as related to the individual…and homosexuals had nothing to do with that, though they’re certainly capitalizing on it. Marrying who we like and dissolving such marriages when we like is a sign and exercise of our power as individuals to exert control over our own bodies, attain a degree of happiness with the person of our choice, enter into contracts etc. As such, freedom to marry who we like becomes a “natural right” in the Enlightenment sense. And in terms of the modern liberal state, such “natural rights” trump any articulation of “natural law” any day of the week.

The idea of man as a self-actualizing, totally autonomous ubermensch is a characteristically leftist idea. Like most such ideas, it’s also an obviously false one.

I agree with you that it’s false, but the point is that it’s not a leftist notion in the least. *It is the founding principle of the modern democratic liberal state. *It is the principle behind the “free market.” It is the principle behind a “free society.” It is the principle which informs both left and right in this country, and though the rhetoric of one side or the other may seem to contradict this assertion, the contradiction is always merely rhetorical. This is why same sex marriage is an inevitability, why no politician will ever do anything substantial regarding abortion, and the list could go on.

he declares that “we can’t live in a society [that recognizes heternormative marriage] and call ourselves Americans.”

The irony is…in terms of the evolution of the modern liberal state, he’s exactly correct.

But complaining about all of this is useless. Pointing out how ludicrous the operative ideology is not, in the end, useful–it only tempts us into fruitless us versus them sorts of thinking. What is useful is articulating, through our actions, our words, our loving resistance, our lives, the alternative vision set out for humanity by God through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. It’s easy to rip apart a foolish argument. It’s hard to live the life of love which being the Body of Christ in the world truly means.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Armyvet007]

That depends on the history books you choose I think… It seems to me that homosexuality was a social norm in the ancient Roman and Greek societies. And MANY societies (including American history prior to the late 1960’s) had always outlawed inter-ethnic couples. Could you explain where inter-ethnic couples were the social norm and homosexuals were not?

The problems with you using Ancient Rome and Greece for support of your argument-

1. Laws concerning marriage within those societies focused on citizenship, not ethnic groups.
2. Neither society’s concept and laws concerning marriage had anything approaching today’s concept of heterosexual and homosexual marriage being somehow equal [the closest would be the Greek rituals concerning an older man taking a younger man as a lover (and for clarification the younger man’s age was very similar to the age that girls got married at). These rituals did not have the same weight/force of law or purpose that marriage did in Greek society. Also, please don’t cite the Nero example (a. he thought he was a god, b. he thougth he was above the law c. he flaunted social norms d. he was most likely bat-blank crazy).]
3. Both societies had rather negative views toward the passive homosexual partner. The passive partner was seen as weak, girly, not really a man, etc. Basically similar to all the negative sterotypes still present today.

Ancient Greece and Rome weren’t the “gay paradise” or perfect historical examples of homosexual marriage revisionists like to present.

 

[sedonaman]

…Notice there is another implicit assumption buried in this: that the universe is a chaos, random, incoherent, undiscernable, etc. This is what he means when he says “The world is gray” (an assertion, not an argument) and that nothing is that simple. I’ve addressed this before elsewhere on these forums, and identified it in the past as a kind of “spiritual autism.” The leftist cannot make sense of the world on its own terms, and therefore cannot experience the order of being as a sacred thing. …

The answer here is how the Leftist approaches truth. I’m not sure it began with subjectivism “the world is gray”] and multiculturalism, but suspect it did. The Leftist proclaims all cultures equal, with none being better than another. Here is the ideology, assumed true without proof. But it is obviously not true since a bushman could not survive on Wall Street, nor could an investment banker survive in the bush. So truth had to be re-defined, or defined away.*****

One of their attempts to explain away the untruth is…

…polylogism, the belief that different people or groups have different forms of logic. Since logic is the art of non-contradiction, polylogism can have only two possible meanings. Either reality is different for each group, or logic is a loose term for method of acquiring knowledge. The latter, though, is not how it is used. Those speaking of polylogism state that the conclusions from the different logics are different. This means that although they both claim to be methods of acquiring knowledge, the truth of the knowledge is different for different groups. This can mean only that reality is different for the different groups. … Polylogism is nothing but social subjectivism. It claims that knowledge is whatever you want it to be, but applies it to groups. Cultures, tribes, or races are the deciders of truth, and reality conforms to their views. What’s true for a Greek philosopher is not [necessarily] true for an Eastern philosopher. This does not mean that the two believe different things. It means that the two are both right, even though they contradict one another. It is a denial of the Law of Identity.

Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.

From there, the Leftist moves to “political correctness”, another attempt around truth by censoring critics. While a particular statement [usually about a favored minority] might be true, it is just not said in polite company; it is not “politically correct”. A particularly egregious form is the censored race war frontpagemag.com/2012/05/15/a-censored-race-war. So, the meaning of PC becomes, “A crusade to ignorance characterized by a denial of truth that conflicts with ideology.” In the case of the censored race war, the ideology is that the different races would commit crime no more than their proportion in the population if racism were not a factor; so contradictory reports have to be dismissed as untrue and leading to false conclusions. So truth must fit the Leftist ideology.When it doesn’t, does he abandon ideology for another? NO! The erroneous ideology must be re-enforced! The solution is always more of the same error. Hence, when the Leftist loses Kansas, does he consider that his message was not liked by Kansans? No. He goes off and writes What’s Wrong With Kansas?

Why do we consent to let palpable, ignorant misfits like this run society? That is something I will never understand.

Although not a psychologist, I have pondered this for quite some time, and I think it has to do with Myers-Briggs personality types. The NF personality is particularly influential far beyond its numbers in the population. politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56. They are over-represented in education, politics, the judiciary, etc.

He concludes with an appeal to equality before the law …

Actually, I believe the law has to treat people the same only if they are in substantially similar situations. For example, an 18-year-old man and an 80-year-old woman would be in the same situation when it comes to the right to vote, but different when it comes to a military draft. Homosexual couples are not anywhere close to being in a similar situation as a heterosexual ones, hence the appeal to civil rights falls flat.

*****What made Peter so great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth. – Barbara Walters eulogizing Peter Jennings

 

[jschutzm]

I just want to comment on one of the arguments given against gay marriage.

“4. It’s unnatural!”

The word “unnatural” means to me - something not natural. Something against nature.

Being in my 70’s, I also remember back during the civil rights era when that same word was used to defend segregation in parts of this country and later as an arguing point against interracial marriage.

A percentage of every country on the planet is homosexual, and has been throughout history.
There is homosexual behavior in animals as well.

My question is how can something that is natural in nature be “unnatural”?

I see it as just another form of prejudice that has to be overcome. And if we feel these people are “different” and should therefore be called to a different life than the rest of us because of how God made them…shame on us!

There are more then 1 connotation to each word.

YES, if you definition of ‘natural’ is ONLY what occurrs in nature - then you would be correct. It WOULD BE wrong for a person to categorize homosexual sex as ‘unnatural’ when in fact it does occurr in nature.

However, most people realize that the word “nature” has more then 1 connotation or meaning.

It can also mean what is “normalative” “promoted” “prevalent” and otherwise the correct use of a resource, action, etc.

Those who say that is is unnatural, are typically referring to the fact that a same gender sex act is not procreative and that this ‘procreativity’ is the ‘natural’ or ‘normalitive’ or correct purpose of sex.

SECONDLY…

I can understand your association with human rights movement, given your age. I grew up post-civil rights and only read about the struggle for equal rights that African Americans went through… but we have to be very serious when we apply this analogy.

I don’t think that the push for SSM is the same as the Equal Rights movement. You’d have to convince me that A) marriage is a right and B) that this discrimination is as arbitrary as skin color.

I can see WHY the SSM advocates would like to link their movement to the Equal Rights movement. I think it was a particularly genius move on their part. One that no doubt has swayed a great number of people.
But I really reject that association and don’t at ALL see the 2 as the same.

The Catholic stance does not discriminate - it simply seeks to state an actual truth.
It is regretable that some say “this is what biggots also said” - but I would say that simply creating associations between 2 things does not make them the same argument.

 

[sedonaman]

There are more then 1 connotation to each word.

YES, if you definition of ‘natural’ is ONLY what occurrs in nature - then you would be correct. It WOULD BE wrong for a person to categorize homosexual sex as ‘unnatural’ when in fact it does occurr in nature.

However, most people realize that the word “nature” has more then 1 connotation or meaning.

It can also mean what is “normalative” “promoted” “prevalent” and otherwise the correct use of a resource, action, etc.

Those who say that is is unnatural, are typically referring to the fact that a same gender sex act is not procreative and that this ‘procreativity’ is the ‘natural’ or ‘normalitive’ or correct purpose of sex.

SECONDLY…

I can understand your association with human rights movement, given your age. I grew up post-civil rights and only read about the struggle for equal rights that African Americans went through… but we have to be very serious when we apply this analogy.

I don’t think that the push for SSM is the same as the Equal Rights movement. You’d have to convince me that A) marriage is a right and B) that this discrimination is as arbitrary as skin color.

I can see WHY the SSM advocates would like to link their movement to the Equal Rights movement. I think it was a particularly genius move on their part. One that no doubt has swayed a great number of people.
But I really reject that association and don’t at ALL see the 2 as the same.

The Catholic stance does not discriminate - it simply seeks to state an actual truth.
It is regretable that some say “this is what biggots also said” - but I would say that simply creating associations between 2 things does not make them the same argument.

Let me add that the word “discrimination” has gotten a bum rap. Everyone discriminates all day, every day in a wide range of situations. Every time you have observed a difference, you have discriminated.

 

[Myqyl]

While I tend to think the ascertian that inter-ethic marriages have been common place pre-1960 are somewhat inaccurate (my travels through Asia tell me it’s still very rare there) I think this is getting us off track. And I never meant to imply that ancient Greece and Rome were a huge, happy gay pride parade… I know they weren’t… The relationship between inter-ethic marriages and gay marriages is limited to the fact that, at least in the US, both were largely illegal prior to the mid-1960’s. One of the prime reasons for inter-ethic marriages being legalized (in the US) was the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which basically says that legal rights (or restrictions) can not be applied to segements of the population without being applied to the whole population. You can not pass laws (in this country) that say only blue eyed people can drive cars. If the blue eyes are allowed to get a license to drive a car, so can all the other eye colors. It’s a pretty basic concept.

So what is marriage? Leaving gender completely out of it, it is a contract between concenting adults that confers a sizable number of legal responsibilities and privilages. Joint property, visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc… We can not confer these privilages on man/woman marriage if we want to restrict them on man/man or woman/woman…

There are really two solutions to this… The first one upsets many people… Let gays marry. So why not look at the other solution… Perhaps marriage should not confer any legal rights. Allow any couples that want to have these rights to get a legal contract written up by a lawyer, but don’t call it a marriage. Then Churchs will be free to define marriage as whatever they want to define it as. But denying gay people to enter into a legal contract that straight people are allowed to enter into is blatantly a violation of the Constitution…

So let’s make marriage between a man, a woman and God… And get the government out of it entirely. Confer NO legal status on married couples and you can define marriage any way you like. I have no issue with restricting the religious discription of marriage. It’s the legal discription that needs to apply to everyone.

Disclaimer : I’d like to point out that while I know that most Catholics are not homophobic, I am… It freaks me out when I see two guys kiss on Bravo… So I don’t watch Bravo. I simply don’t think we can impose legal restrictions on a group simply because they make us uncomfortable.

God bless

 

[sedonaman]

…
So what is marriage? Leaving gender completely out of it, it is a contract between concenting adults that confers a sizable number of legal responsibilities and privilages. Joint property, visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc… We can not confer these privilages on man/woman marriage if we want to restrict them on man/man or woman/woman…

Wrong question. It should be, “What is the public purpose of marriage?” So your view of marriage is too narrow.

… And get the government out of it entirely. …

No. We can’t because the next question is, “What is owed the child?”
Jennifer Roback Morse, Phd

• Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
• Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
• Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
• Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related

Besides, SS"M" would be unconstitutional:

• Marriage is the first, and the greatest guarantor of human equality in history.
• Marriage is the constitutional construct creating a place for men in family and society.
• Why Roe v. Wade makes same-sex marriage unconstitutional
• Marriage as a natural equal-rights institution: parallels in racial-equality decisions.
• Same-sex marriage is a contradictory construct because it segregates by sex.
• Proponents of same-sex marriage are selling gender segregation
• Same-Sex marriage and civil unions: replacing welfare and marriage with “super-families”
• Changing the public battleground from same-sex marriage to heterosexual marriage

mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher022404.htm

 

[Myqyl]

I don’t think that the push for SSM is the same as the Equal Rights movement. You’d have to convince me that A) marriage is a right and B) that this discrimination is as arbitrary as skin color.

It certainly confers a lot of rights. Marriage grants the couple somewhere in the vicinty of 1200 different legal rights (depending on the state)… This is why Gays want it. If it was simply a well planned party with well dressed people, they already know how to do that. Arguably they can do that far better than the rest of us.

 

[sedonaman]

It certainly confers a lot of rights. Marriage grants the couple somewhere in the vicinty of 1200 different legal rights (depending on the state)…

It also confers responsibilities, responsibilities that gays won’t have, not the least of which is making contributions to society. The homosexual vision is to extract from society whatever; that’s all it can do because it is a creation of the state.

This is why Gays want it.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the last 40+ years is you can’t believe a thing when a homosexual tells you what gays want. Before, they said all they wanted was to be left alone, so why are we even discussing SS"M"?

---

The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we KEEP saying NO.

 

[NeedImprovement]

From :

CatholicInsight.com
WORLD
Attacks on freedom of religion and conscience
By Catholic Insight staff

Hardcopy Issue Date: January 2010
Online Publication Date: Dec 15, 2009, 17:55

link to article here

Excerpt (highlights mine) :

Australian Cardinal George Pell rejects silence in the face of adversity. He has raised a cry to battle the global anti-discrimination laws that threaten religious freedom the world over. In a speech delivered to the Australian Christian lobby on November 20, 2009, he spelled out the details of his concerns . . .

Christians must fight “anti-discrimination” laws that inhibit freedom of religion. Discrimination against people based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” leads to “anti-discrimination laws which do not respect fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion and conscience.” He took aim at a recent paper delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which begins: “The compatibility of religious freedom with human rights is the subject of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia in this area.”

“Let us spell this out,” said the Cardinal. “**The clear meaning of these words is that religious freedom is not a human right and may not be compatible with human rights.” **He then turned the enquiry around and explained that “all of this simply underscores the need for a different sort of inquiry; not into whether religious freedom is compatible with human rights, but into whether this enquiry of the human rights commission is compatible with human rights.”

(*Same story, but different framing- according to ZENIT Dispatch as posted by EWTN at this link ).

 

[johnnyjones]

A priest in my parish gave a sermon at last Sundays mass at which he said, and I’m paraphrasing, things take time to figure out. We will see where the Holy Spirit leads us. If something it is not of God (he included gay mariage), it won’t survive.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Many people believe that–equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are more and more confused in the modern liberal state. In many ways, the confusion is inevitable as democracy tends to quantify rather than qualify the individual. And appeasement of homosexuals isn’t the issue–it has everything to do with the evolution of the modern liberal state.
…

The bolded part just one among others in your post that need qualification.

It is both, the former just a subset of the latter. The insane push for gay ‘marriage’ is being given the time of day to appease homosexuals and to force everyone towards a modern liberal state.

sw85 is correct that the predicate for the push for gay ‘marriage’ that “It’s always and everywhere wrong to treat any anyone differently than anyone else for any reason” is nonsense.

Dissimilarity in configuration requires dissimilar treatments. Marriage has always, will always, be based foremost on the sexual difference of partners. Even if it somehow gets redefined to encompass an alternative configuration of same sex ‘maried’ partners by social engineers, such partnerships will remain faux and unacceptable.
,

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The bolded part just one among others in your post that need qualification.

What I mean is that catering to homosexuals is incidental to the liberal state ideology of individual self-actualization. Homosexuals have bought into that ideology–so too have many Christians and Catholics who believe themselves to be conservative or traditional. There is no “appeasement,” no special effort by the state to go out of its way to hush up some noisy homosexuals–the machinery of the state is just rolling along, gradually unfolding itself to itself, and we’re basically just along for the ride…

The insane push for gay ‘marriage’ is being given the time of day to appease homosexuals and to force everyone towards a modern liberal state.

Thing is, though, when the USCCB couches a moral argument in terms of religious liberty (which is to say, in the terms of the liberal state), there’s not much forcing going on. And that’s part of the point, here. The modern liberal state isn’t some grim reality toward which we’re headed: it’s the norm. We’re already there. Every modern democratic state is an institutional reflection of some Enlightenment ideal of individual liberty.

sw85 is correct that the predicate for the push for gay ‘marriage’ that “It’s always and everywhere wrong to treat any anyone differently than anyone else for any reason” is nonsense.

Indeed–I, too, agreed with him.

Dissimilarity in configuration requires dissimilar treatments. Marriage has always, will always, be based foremost on the sexual difference of partners. Even if it somehow gets redefined to encompass an alternative configuration of same sex ‘maried’ partners by social engineers, such partnerships will remain faux and unacceptable.

Faux and unacceptable from a Catholic perspective, yes, but not according to the State, for which the Catholic perspective is largely irrelevant.

But I agree: you cannot properly respect and honor difference if you insist on treating different things in identical ways. That’s not equality–that’s tyranny. As Blake says, “One law for the Lion and the Ox is Oppression.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[NeedImprovement]

(Although I see merit in and agree with a good part of Deo Volente’s assertion that within the last century, *the state’s definition * of marriage at least, does tend to lend itself to fostering individuality ) I think if we get right down to the differences, and to the time honoured institution of husband and wife, I would afford a wider margin of credibility to InSearchofGrace’s following comment :

. . . Even if it somehow gets redefined to encompass an alternative configuration of same sex ‘maried’ partners by social engineers, such partnerships will remain faux and unacceptable.
,

It is not simply faux and unacceptable from a Catholic perspective , I believe it is surely incongruous from a Christian perspective and from the heterosexual perspective as well .

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . It is simply a fact that within the last century or so, marriage has been completely redefined as related to the individual…and homosexuals had nothing to do with that, though they’re certainly capitalizing on it . . .

Tending towards individualism - yes ; but “completely redefined within the last century or so” . . . :dts:

(The definition of marriage + quotes directly below is Taken from James A. Watkins, Definition of Marriage)

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

My library contains three dictionaries; their definitions of marriage vary in context, but ultimately each source supports the same definition. The definitions of marriage are as follows “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife,” "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law," and “*Social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” *

GAY MARRIAGE
The 21st Century finds this definition being challenged. People wish to redefine what has always been in order to suit their own purposes and circumstances ;

. . . "Crafty fools ask foolish fools, ‘What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?’ The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact. Those who have trouble connecting the dots here—which lamentably includes many defenders of the traditional institution—should take time to consider the fact that the new “inclusive” definition, in striking procreation from the purview of marriage, has left both parents and children without a lawful institution that respects and guarantees their natural rights to each other.

While peoples’ personal interpretation of marriage “within the last century or so”, may have been somewhat influenced by individualism, the definition of marriage has always remained constant and has always understood the prerequisite comprisal of its foundation to be the union of a man and a woman. Any change in that definition is recent, is a lie, and is a direct consequence of the gay militant / homosexual activist agenda ; which serves to undermine marriage and the family.

To further claim inaccurately

…and homosexuals had nothing to do with that, though they’re certainly capitalizing on it… .

is not only in my opinion, a serious error ; it’s quite an outrageous one.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

While peoples’ personal interpretation of marriage “within the last century or so”, may have been somewhat influenced by individualism, the definition of marriage has always remained constant and has always understood the prerequisite comprisal of its foundation to be the union of a man and a woman.

I see what you’re saying, Need, and if we’re talking about dictionary definitions as opposed to how / what something is construed to mean or how we are to understand its qualities or its value, then you’re right, of course.

Any change in that definition is recent, is a lie, and is a direct consequence of the gay militant / homosexual activist agenda ; which serves to undermine marriage and the family.

But I don’t think you actually believe that a dictionary definition tells the whole story regarding what marriage *means. *And what we’re talking about is what it means, not how a dictionary defines it. A dictionary is not a moral authority, not a catechism, not a source for dogma or doctrine, and it does not determine a thing’s actual *value. *Nor is a dictionary representative of linguistic stability–which is to say, we change how we define and understand words all the time. That’s why new editions of dictionaries are printed every year.

So what marriage actually means, as opposed to merely how a dictionary defines the word, has definitely changed, and drastically, within the last century or so. And this change has little to do with homosexuals and more to do with how heterosexuals have re-construed marriage through birth control and divorce. Which is to say some version of this: if heterosexuals had not construed marriage to mean more about the couple than about the society in which the couple lives, and further, if they had not introduced the concept of the intentionally childless marriage, then homosexuals would not have been able to imagine themselves married to each other in the first place.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[NeedImprovement]

I see what you’re saying, Need, and if we’re talking about dictionary definitions as opposed to how / what something is construed to mean or how we are to understand its qualities or its value, then you’re right, of course.

But I don’t think you actually believe that a dictionary definition tells the whole story regarding what marriage *means. . . *

I thought that *what I actually believe * was much better expressed in the quote from James A. Watkins included my previous post :

NeedImprovement:

The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact

.The words “substance” and “accidents” have distinct philosophical definitions - dictionary definitions, necessary for proper objective analysis. With these two definitions , we can tell what is black and what is white , as opposed to reading certain propositions positing that “everything is grey” .

Where I can agree with you DV , is in the harm that birth control and abortion causes to families, to marriages. And what good things can we say about divorce, considering that it divests families of their spiritual and material while simultaneously making some lawyers richer. It has been proposed by more than one Catholic thinker, that birth conrtrol leads to divorce. I consider all these things as dmaging marriage - not as “defining” it or discerning its meaning. As I said, I also agree that marriage in the last cetury has become more individualistic. Yet we could hardly define or discern the meaning of something understood as the union of two, through a unilateral lens. . . it would always be a distortion.

The answer to all these ills, is always and shall always be our own individual personal holiness - our efforts by God’s grace to grow closer to union with Him.

But to say

heterosexuals have re-construed marriage through . . . divorce

is like saying “reconstrued friendship through enmity” or reconstrued “peace through war” (that’s a little too “out there” in my limited opinion).