Senior Catholic clerics weigh in on gay marriage

[josh987654321]

You’ve only made one clear point so far (several times) which I’ve refuted, but you just keep repeating it. You keep saying that the sexual nature of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are different, and so we can’t call them both marriage.

Exactly

And I keep saying that the government doesn’t care about the sexual nature of the relationship. The sexual nature of ANY two relationships can be vastly different regardless of the sexual orientation. The government doesn’t care what goes on in the bedroom. I’m not sure how I can make that any clearer. They are interested in the specific type of committed relationship between the two people.

And as I have said the government doesn’t care about the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman, they are treated equally under law, so why can women not argue to be recognised as men?

Whether or not you believe it, two men and two women can have the same relationship that a man and woman do - there are thousands out there right now who do.

No. They cannot, thats why I mentioned male and female complimentation especially sexually, two men or two women cannot have this, common sense should tell you that men and women are different and therefore a relationship with the opposite sex and a relationship with the same sex is very different.

I’m not getting where this line of thinking is going. Who cares about calling women men? What does that have to do with same-sex marriage?

Im trying to show how illogical it is to call a homosexual union ‘marriage’ for equality sake.

Yes, actually that’s exactly what it means. If the law sees no difference, then for the purposes of the law, there’s no difference.

Thats why I said, because the law doesnt see a difference between men and women, should women argue to be recognised as men?

The law has long recognized that children don’t need their biological parents present, or even two parents in order for a marriage to be legal. This argument that many people make about protecting children is based on a significant fallacy: that if we allow same-sex marriage, all of a sudden same-sex couples will start raising children as if they couldn’t before. They already can and do raise children, so saying that you believe they shouldn’t is pointless. There are thousands of families out there right now who are same-sex parent households raising children. So by denying those couples marriage rights, you’re not only NOT preventing what you think should be prevented, but you’re also actually doing a disservice to thousands of REAL children who exist out there right now because their parents don’t have the same legal protections under the law in order to try and prevent HYPOTHETICAL children from ever happening (which you can’t). Do those kids not matter? Unless you snatch them all away from their families and give them to families with opposite sex parents, why don’t they deserve the same protections that other children have?

The point Im making is that obviously a mother and father is the best option for children, if you equate homosexuality and heterosexuality under law through same sex marriage, than people can no longer ‘weigh’ into their decision the fact that a child is without a father figure or mother figure in a homosexual union.

Obviously heterosexual marriage’s are the best option for children, but there is not a “one size fits all” solution when it comes to adoption, we most certainly should be able to ‘weigh’ in the lack of a father figure or mother figure into our decision without it being unlawful or discrimination though.

Don’t ask me that, ask the law that. They recognize that a committed relationship which has a romantic/sexual nature is to be recognized, but they’re the ones who purposefully don’t get into the nature of whatever sex is happening.

They need to see that the sexual anatomy of a male and female is very different, so to equate a homosexual union and a heterosexual union under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Don’t patronize me by acting like I don’t know the human anatomy. Human sexuality has long been understood to encompass so much more than penis in vagina - regardless of your sexual orientation. You can believe what you want about what the church tells you is immoral or not. Do you know what country you’re living in? Sexual morality is relative for everyone. In general, not even having to do with marriage rights, this country allows anyone to do any sexual activity they please, not matter how strange you might think it to be (as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others - think about that sentence before you try and rebuff)

Homosexuals can still do any sexual activity they please no matter how strange we might think it to be (as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others), but they cannot act on very different sexual activity to a heterosexual union and call them both marriage’s.

Because of their sexual nature a homosexual union compared to a heterosexual union is very different, why do you want to equate them both as marriage’s? it’s like calling women, men, I patronized you because your argument for same sex marriage seems to lack the sense that the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman are very different, thus the two unions are very different and therefore shouldn’t be both reffered to as marriage’s.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Whenever you start by saying “the Church says…” as a matter of U.S. constitutional law, you realize you’ve lost, don’t you? The Church’s teaching, morally right though it may be, is irrelevant to the issue of American constitutional construction, and your appeal is an invalid appeal to authority.

I started with it because I have noticed some Catholic’s arguing for same sex marriage, I understand if you know that the acts of homosexuality are sinful and you are trying to argue for a way to oppose something sinful being law in a way that is non-religious, but I don’t understand when you believe in God and think that homosexuality is anything other than a miss use of his creation.

The very nature of homosexuality means to use your organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be use for, this is why we say it’s immoral and disordered and that it is sinful, because it’s a miss use of God’s creation.

If you disagree with all of this, than fine, I will just continue with other ways of opposing it, but I wanted to make sure people knew exactly what they were supporting as religious people.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

So it is “Un-Catholic” of me to embrace homosexual individuals as people?

You got me all wrong, I thought I was making my point clearly but I guess I wasn’t.

ricmat summed up my views spot on.

Indeed. Love your neighbor. Love your enemy.

Love is an act of the will, not of the flesh.

Here is a good definition of love that I read here:

True love is “other-centered” and willingly diminishes, while it nourishes others to the exclusion and often to the detriment of the self. It has no “contingency”, and is forthright and enduring.

The matter at hand is not whether homosexuals should be allowed to “love” each other, where love is as described above. Of course they should, as should we all. And a marriage “certificate” is not required to do that. The approval of society is not required to do that.

The matter at hand is “sex outside of marriage.” And here I’m talking about marriage as defined by God (“become one flesh…go forth and multiply”) Gay marriage is impossible, since the marriage cannot be consummated. There are no “2” persons (male and female), there are 2 of the same “person”, and so they cannot combine to become “one” person / flesh. And neither can they multiply, not even theoretically.

Homosexual “sex” acts are not acts of love. They are disordered desires manifested as disordered acts. Instead of this sex act potentially resulting in a seed planted in fertile “ground”, the seed is intentionally planted in a location designed for defecation. Like all of our disordered desires, the truth is turned upside down and mocks God and his creation, and his commands.

The church teaches that those with same sex attraction have a difficult cross to bear, and that we should be aware of this, and sympathetic to it. They should bear it in the same way that unmarried heterosexuals should - which is to say, celibacy.

We all have crosses, though I admit that celibacy is a tough one to be told one must embrace when disordered desires can be so strong.

Right. Jesus told (at least indirectly) those who would stone the woman caught in adultery not to judge her. But he went on to say to the woman even more explicitly, go and sin no more. Jesus tells all of us, homosexuals included, the same thing.

In an effort to embrace homosexuals, people are embracing homosexuality, I think it’s good to embrace homosexuals, but Im very much against embracing homosexuality.

It’s only right and just to be arguing for equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, however it is unjust and wrong to be arguing for equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality through things like same sex marriage.

Not enough people are separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, it’s the acts of homosexuality that we are against, not homosexuals, we oppose homosexuality not homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

The truth is that the desires for homosexuality are infact disordered and Immoral, no different to disordered and Immoral desires that everyone else suffers from including heterosexuals, we must all control them, that is in no way saying that homosexuals themselves are disordered or Immoral, becuase that is not true, they are no different to anyone else able and capable to live a full and fruitful life with Christ, but to try and aim for a lifestyle that’s the same as a heterosexual one with those desires, is only going to cause a homosexual more harm as the reality of those desires they are trying to act on will become more evident the more they try and persue them, we all need to carry our cross in opposing our disordered and Immoral desires that we all suffer from, there is far more to life than giving into our sexual desires.

People who encourage the acts of homosexuality through things like same sex marriage seem to think that they are doing the right thing, but what they are doing is making it worse for homosexuals I think, because the more people encourage that kind of behaviour as a societal norm, the more homosexuals will think it okay to persue that kind of lifestyle, than when they have pursed it they will realise the reality, that they and others already knew deep down, that their desires are infact disordered and Immoral and that people were encouraging them to reach for something that they could never actually obtain no matter how hard they tried, because there are many things that a heterosexual union stands to recieve through marriage and family that a homosexual union simply cannot, they will be constantly hitting brick wall after brick wall whilst trying to imitate a heterosexual union, not from others, but from nature itself.

The only way is to accept the cross of our disordered and immoral desires, so that we may rule our desires and not let our desires rule us, so that we will not be a slave to our desires.

Unfortunatly when it comes to homosexuality there is no other way, because Im sure that giving into the acts of homosexuality is not the answer for homosexuals, giving into those desires will simply lead them down a destructive path and ultimatly leave them in despair, which is a road I wouldn’t want anyone to go down, so I refuse to encourage them to take such a destructive path through legalising or participating in same sex marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[RobbyS]

What are you saying here exactly? That gay people are somehow mentally incompetent or lacking normal capacity? This would be…unusual to argue. Please explain.

“Competent”means able to do something. Married man, for instance, is not competent to marry a single woman, nor a ten year old competent at all, at least not under American law. Hitherto, we have believed that two men are not competent by nature.

 

[RobbyS]

You got me all wrong, I thought I was making my point clearly but I guess I wasn’t.

ricmat summed up my views spot on.

In an effort to embrace homosexuals, people are embracing homosexuality, I think it’s good to embrace homosexuals, but Im very much against embracing homosexuality.

It’s only right and just to be arguing for equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, however it is unjust and wrong to be arguing for equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality through things like same sex marriage.

Not enough people are separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, it’s the acts of homosexuality that we are against, not homosexuals, we oppose homosexuality not homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Homosexuals are equal to other individuals, just as drunks and adulterers are equal to others. What has amazed me is that we seem to have accepted with no proof that a homosexual is more like a man born without one leg than a mere sinner. We think it is a sickness of the soul, they, a sickness of the mind/body.

 

[RobbyS]

Ok, so here we come to something interesting I think. Not allowing gays to enter into civil marriage will not prevent gay couples from raising children as has already been pointed out. A question: what would you advocate we do about such situations at present? A woman is married to a man and they have a child. They divorce and he is a lousy fellow so she ends up with full custody and is a good mother. She then comes out of the closet, having been a lesbian her whole life but in fear of living it. She meets and falls in love with a woman and the woman moves in with her and her son. Do we take the child away?

What about a single man adopting a child, then later moving in with a gay lover. They live as a family. Should the state remove the child, revoke the legal adoption and place the child in foster care?

I think you are contriving a soap opera plot. Of course the bars have been lowered by allowing homosexuals to have custody of children. And now Church agencies are not longer allowed to place children because they will not let homosexuals take care of them. “It is for the children."| they say. Not so, but in this sentimental age, we believe such things.

 

[fix]

Ok, first of all, I have not stated I’m in favor of gay marriage, or that I find it morally acceptable. I don’t think it’s moral. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be legally permitted though, and not does that mean that we should embrace poor arguments in support of the hard-line position against it. Bad arguments are bad, whether about morality or baking.

People call bad arguments one’s they disagree with. It does not make them bad.

Secondly, in regards to your responses, um, wow, WOW, that’s all I think I can say. Thank you for your honesty, I guess. You would appear to be saying you find it morally acceptable, preferable even, for the State to tear a child from the home and leave him/her to the vagaries of the foster system or an orphanage, than to keep the child with even their biological mother or father, solely based on the sexual orientation of the parent. I don’t think anyone in the Church hierarchy has advocated this, but ok…

It depends on the situation. You think exposing a child to a deviant relationship is some minor problem? All I can say is wow you do not see this situation as it really is. You think some poor kid deserves to me exposed to two men pretending to be husband and wife? You think that is not moral violence and psychologically bad?

What if the child, as many do in such homes, loves their parents vey much and is happy? What if they are excelling in school and life, and don’t want to go away?

What if those are not the right criteria? What if you leave out something more essential? What if the “happiness” is mere deception? What if you are deforming the child’s mind and conscience?

You call homosexuality deviant, this is a Church teaching I accept of my own free will as I submit to the Church in this matter of morals and faith, but that’s only because I align myself freely with the Church. You have no right, nor does the Church herself, to impose this theologically based moral principle on the rest of civil, secular society. There is a word for this sort of governing structure: Theocracy. It never works out well in history, and I prefer the civil form of government we have, thanks.

You are saying that right and wrong are relative. If that is true then there is no reason to impose anti rape laws on society.

If one does not agree with Church teaching on basic natural law in this area, then there is no objective basis for them to conclude that homosexual acts are “deviant” at all.

Like saying if one does not agree that 1+1=2 then one has no basis to believe in math.

Your “deviancy” charge is wholly religiously based, and to another not sharing your beliefs would seem rather to be “eww, gross”, which is not a sound basis for running civil domestic law. This is not a case where the clear welfare and safety of a child is at stake, such as with narcotics use or abuse in the home.

You start from a false premise. Your conclusion is wrong. Homosexuality is deviant and this is known from right reason, history, science, philosophy, theology, tradition, and frankly is self evident to those who do not have a seared conscience.

 

[Blacksword]

“Competent”means able to do something. Married man, for instance, is not competent to marry a single woman, nor a ten year old competent at all, at least not under American law. Hitherto, we have believed that two men are not competent by nature.

An, I see. In other words, “competent” is here being used to basically mean “that which we morally agree with”. In other words, this argument really just collapses back to a moral/religious argument, which, again, can have no standing for civil law.

 

[Blacksword]

Homosexuals are equal to other individuals, just as drunks and adulterers are equal to others. What has amazed me is that we seem to have accepted with no proof that a homosexual is more like a man born without one leg than a mere sinner. We think it is a sickness of the soul, they, a sickness of the mind/body.

Umm, most gays do not feel they have a “sickness of the mind”, they just feel its who they naturally are. They are correct in this sentiment, and the Church agrees. That doesn’t mean they have free license, according to Catholic moral theology, to act on their desires, just as I don’t have the freedom to sleep with every woman I see that I take a liking to. But characterizing homosexual orientation in itself as a mental illness of some sort is wrong and dangerous.

 

[Blacksword]

I think you are contriving a soap opera plot. Of course the bars have been lowered by allowing homosexuals to have custody of children. And now Church agencies are not longer allowed to place children because they will not let homosexuals take care of them. “It is for the children."| they say. Not so, but in this sentimental age, we believe such things.

A soap opera plot? The first scenario I outlined above was exactly the case of a colleague of mine, I know the woman personally. These sorts of cases DO exist, and not in miniscule numbers, they’re out there.

 

[Blacksword]

People call bad arguments one’s they disagree with. It does not make them bad.

No, study logic in a college-level philosphy course sometime. People call arguments bad when they are unsound or invalid, containing logical fallacies like argument from authority, argumentum ad populum, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and so forth. Like the arguments you have made and that I tend to hear on this issue.

It depends on the situation. You think exposing a child to a deviant relationship is some minor problem? All I can say is wow you do not see this situation as it really is. You think some poor kid deserves to me exposed to two men pretending to be husband and wife? You think that is not moral violence and psychologically bad?

What is “moral violence”? What does that even mean? Again, your only basis for calling the relationship “deviant” is a religious one. And I AGREE with the moral theology (which makes this argument funny really)! But I cannot agree with forcing others to adopt, as a matter of civil law, your (or my) moral theology.

What if those are not the right criteria? What if you leave out something more essential? What if the “happiness” is mere deception? What if you are deforming the child’s mind and conscience?

What if you don’t know anything at all about how happy and content the child might be? What is more essential to the child than their well-being, their emotional and physical well-being? From the viewpoint of the State (which is what matters in this discussion), nothing. The child’s conscience is their own, and they will inevitably form it as an adult. If I believe (and I do happen to) that teaching children creationism is absolutely “deforming” their minds, do I have the right to legally prohibit parents from such teaching?

You are saying that right and wrong are relative. If that is true then there is no reason to impose anti rape laws on society.

No, I’m saying as a matter of a free democratic society, moral principles are relative, each person has the freedom to their own, and cannot force their morality on others. Civil laws are designed to protect the individual rights of one citizen from being infringed by others. Obviously rape has no commonality with gay marriage, rape clearly is a violation of another’s rights. Gay people marrying or not does not, not NOT infringe on anyone else’s legal rights. It just makes you go “EWWW!”.

Like saying if one does not agree that 1+1=2 then one has no basis to believe in math.

Math is subject to hard proofs, morals are NOT.

You start from a false premise. Your conclusion is wrong. Homosexuality is deviant and this is known from right reason, history, science, philosophy, theology, tradition, and frankly is self evident to those who do not have a seared conscience.

Sigh…I agree with the moral theology of the Church. But we don’t live in a theocracy! You know what else is deviant and immoral? Lying, breaking promises, adultery, and lots of other things that are not, and I would not want to be, against the law. Legislating morality is not acceptable in a free society, but you and I are both free to, in love and humility, attempt to convince gay friends or family of the moral rightness of the Church’s position and the better path for them to CHOOSE of their own free will to follow.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, study logic in a college-level philosphy course sometime.

While I have no personal knowledge of fix’s education, I’m calling you on what comes across like an ad hominem remark. He has shown no inability to grasp the sequence of logic in an argument. In fact, he is eiminently simple and direct in his responses to points made. (How would you know that he has never studied college-level logic and philosophy, formally or informally?)

Not a fair remark, i.m.o.

 

[Blacksword]

While I have no personal knowledge of fix’s education, I’m calling you on what comes across like an ad hominem remark. He has shown no inability to grasp the sequence of logic in an argument. In fact, he is eiminently simple and direct in his responses to points made. (How would you know that he has never studied college-level logic and philosophy, formally or informally?)

Not a fair remark, i.m.o.

Where did I make an argument against the person fallacy? You didn’t understand my post I think. It wasn’t an attack at all, I was pointed out why I’d said earlier that the arguments I’ve read in this thread are bad. Not because “I disagree with them” but because they contain logical fallacies. Things like the rhetorical device of slippery slope make for good emotional appeal, but not good logical argumentation.

Also, FYI, ad hominem means, as a matter of logic, attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing their argument itself. I’ve not done this, but rather directly addressed the content of the arguments themselves.

 

[scipio337]

…Sigh…I agree with the moral theology of the Church. But we don’t live in a theocracy! You know what else is deviant and immoral? Lying, breaking promises, adultery, and lots of other things that are not, and I would not want to be, against the law. Legislating morality is not acceptable in a free society, but you and I are both free to, in love and humility, attempt to convince gay friends or family of the moral rightness of the Church’s position and the better path for them to CHOOSE of their own free will to follow.

All morality is relative? Does morality exist outside of religious dogma? Should we suspend every (religious or cultural) “victimless”, morality-based law?

All legislation is morality based, whether personal, or dogmatic.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where did I make an argument against the person fallacy. You didn’t understand my post I think. It wasn’t an attack at all, I was pointed out why I’d said earlier that the arguments I’ve read in this thread are bad. Not because “I disagree with them” but because they contain logical fallacies. Things like the rhetorical device of slippery slope make for good emotional appeal, but not good logical argumentation.

Also, FYI, ad hominem means, as a matter of logic, attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing their argument itself. I’ve not done this, but rather directly addressed the content of the arguments themselves.

Blacksword, do not preach to me. I’m as educated as you are. Re-read my post as to the remark of yours that was boxed. You suggested he had never taken a logic course on the college-level. (1) You don’t know that. (2) Perhaps he is already skilled in logical understanding through other education/knowledge/natural aiblity. And I’m suggesting that at least the latter is true, given what I have read in his posting history.

 

[fix]

No, study logic in a college-level philosphy course sometime. People call arguments bad when they are unsound or invalid, containing logical fallacies like argument from authority, argumentum ad populum, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and so forth. Like the arguments you have made and that I tend to hear on this issue.

Usually they call them bad when they do not like the conclusion. I am not sure what your position is other than you think homosexual persons have some “right” to marry. What is your argument exactly?

What is “moral violence”? What does that even mean? Again, your only basis for calling the relationship “deviant” is a religious one. And I AGREE with the moral theology (which makes this argument funny really)! But I cannot agree with forcing others to adopt, as a matter of civil law, your (or my) moral theology.

You may want to study your faith more in this area. I simply quoted the proper Vatican document. I used the same words the Church uses. Moral violence is self explanatory. Children have a right not to be subjected to these gravely immoral situations.

To claim my only basis for holding the truth in this matter is sectarian is false. This is the usual homosexualist position. You attempt to minimize and deflect the truth of the matter. Homosexual relations are deviant. This is known from reason, science, philosophy, history, Scripture, and is self evident.

What if you don’t know anything at all about how happy and content the child might be? What is more essential to the child than their well-being, their emotional and physical well-being?

To claim when is being well cared for while under such a situation is like claiming two drug dealers care for a child well. That the kid survives is no reason to condone or encourage such living environments.

From the viewpoint of the State (which is what matters in this discussion), nothing. The child’s conscience is their own, and they will inevitably form it as an adult. If I believe (and I do happen to) that teaching children creationism is absolutely “deforming” their minds, do I have the right to legally prohibit parents from such teaching?

This is a view inconsistent with reason and the Catholic faith. One does not make the State a god that should do anything simply because it can happen. The State has an obligation to promote the common good, not to allow all to get away with as much as possible and hope it all works out anyway.

No, I’m saying as a matter of a free democratic society, moral principles are relative, each person has the freedom to their own, and cannot force their morality on others.

Since when? Morality is forced on others every single day.

Civil laws are designed to protect the individual rights of one citizen from being infringed by others. Obviously rape has no commonality with gay marriage, rape clearly is a violation of another’s rights. Gay people marrying or not does not, not NOT infringe on anyone else’s legal rights. It just makes you go “EWWW!”.

This is a good example of relativism. You throw around the words “rights” as if simply claiming such such is true. There is no right to homosexual perverted sex. The State has an obligation to protect authentic rights, not create false rights.

Your childish “eww” simply shows that human nature is naturally repulsed by evil. You may find such fundamental concepts troubling but the truth exists no matter how much you may want to deny it.

Math is subject to hard proofs, morals are NOT.

Rubbish. You may want to study college level logic. Moral truths are subject to proofs. If you are a disciple of scientism and materialism then you may not grasp that.

Sigh…I agree with the moral theology of the Church.

If you do then you know you are bound to oppose “gay” marriage laws.

But we don’t live in a theocracy! You know what else is deviant and immoral? Lying, breaking promises, adultery, and lots of other things that are not, and I would not want to be, against the law. Legislating morality is not acceptable in a free society, but you and I are both free to, in love and humility, attempt to convince gay friends or family of the moral rightness of the Church’s position and the better path for them to CHOOSE of their own free will to follow.

All nonsense. Perjury is illegal, adultery is still illegal in states, homosexual acts were illegal up until a few years ago. Morality is all that is legislated.

 

[Blacksword]

All morality is relative? Does morality exist outside of religious dogma? Should we suspend every (religious or cultural) “victimless”, morality-based law?

All legislation is morality based, whether personal, or dogmatic.

You know I didn’t say this, come now. I agree that natural law forms a basis for our understanding of the universal rights of man, that does not mean we should legislate every moral issue. Americans used to have some conception of the difference, I really wonder what has happened to this understanding…

 

[Blacksword]

Blacksword, do not preach to me. I’m as educated as you are. Re-read my post as to the remark of yours that was boxed. You suggested he had never taken a logic course on the college-level. (1) You don’t know that. (2) Perhaps he is already skilled in logical understanding through other education/knowledge/natural aiblity. And I’m suggesting that at least the latter is true, given what I have read in his posting history.

I’m not preaching, I explained what ad hominem means and why it doesn’t apply to anything I said.