Senior Catholic clerics weigh in on gay marriage

[Blacksword]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I have a degree in philosophy, thanks Morality is not subject to deductive or scientific proofs, simple as that. That doesn’t mean it isn’t real or doesn’t matter. Perjury is a specific crime, lying is not, and I’d love to see a conviction for adultery stand in a modern court of law if you have an argument against gay marriage not based on religious faith ultimately then provide it, thanks.

And FYI, people have a right to privacy, yours and Justice Scalia’s feelings about it notwithstanding. Consensual sexual acts between adults in their own bedrooms falls under this right, I assure you.

 

[estesbob]

I have a degree in philosophy, thanks Morality is not subject to deductive or scientific proofs, simple as that. That doesn’t mean it isn’t real or doesn’t matter. Perjury is a specific crime, lying is not, and I’d love to see a conviction for adultery stand in a modern court of law if you have an argument against gay marriage not based on religious faith ultimately then provide it, thanks.

And FYI, people have a right to privacy, yours and Justice Scalia’s feelings about it notwithstanding. Consensual sexual acts between adults in their own bedrooms falls under this right, I assure you.

People are getting married in their bedrooms now?

 

[Blacksword]

People are getting married in their bedrooms now?

? Er, what do you mean exactly?

 

[fix]

I have a degree in philosophy, thanks

Then you ought to understand the Catholic position better than you have exhibited so far.

Morality is not subject to deductive or scientific proofs, simple as that

I did not say they were. I said they are subject to rigorous proofs. We do not apply mathematical proofs to morality but that does not mean proofs are weak or wrong.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t real or doesn’t matter. Perjury is a specific crime, lying is not, and I’d love to see a conviction for adultery stand in a modern court of law

In 2010 a woman in Batavia NY was charged with adultery.

if you have an argument against gay marriage not based on religious faith ultimately then provide it, thanks.

Just the fact marriage has never involved same sex persons is reason enough not to arbitrarily redefine marriage. Two same sex persons cannot engage in an act that could ever produce children.

And FYI, people have a right to privacy, yours and Justice Scalia’s feelings about it notwithstanding. Consensual sexual acts between adults in their own bedrooms falls under this right, I assure you.

So you can shoot drugs in your bedroom? Watch kiddie porn there too?

Which philosophical school reasons this way?

 

[fix]

People are getting married in their bedrooms now?

Apparently privacy means anything goes.

Not only is marriage a public event, but “private” vice affects us all at some point or another.

 

[Blacksword]

Then you ought to understand the Catholic position better than you have exhibited so far.

I did not say they were. I said they are subject to rigorous proofs. We do not apply mathematical proofs to morality but that does not mean proofs are weak or wrong.

In 2010 a woman in Batavia NY was charged with adultery.

Just the fact marriage has never involved same sex persons is reason enough not to arbitrarily redefine marriage. Two same sex persons cannot engage in an act that could ever produce children.

So you can shoot drugs in your bedroom? Watch kiddie porn there too?

Which philosophical school reasons this way?

Sigh. Please explain where I’ve dispalyed any misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the topic…The woman charged with adultery, you mean this: syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/batavia_woman_charged_with_adu.html ?

Yeah the case was pled out and adultery charge dismissed, it would have been ruled unconstitutional if a conviction had resulted, you can bet.

The argument you put forth up above is a non sequitur. It’s logically fallacious as a form of invalid argument from authority (here with “history” or “previous practice and tradition” being the authority appealed to). Just because something has always been that way doesn’t mean it must or even should stay that way. An example: in 1860 one could have quite similarly said “But we’ve always had slaves!!”. That fact doesn’t justify slavery.

Nor does the fact that gays cannot have natural children from their physical union win the day. This only works for one who has already freely accepted the moral theological principles of natural law as taught by the Church. The Church, and you, must convince people to FREELY chose to accept and follow this teaching. American civil law dos not care a whit for this theological (i.e. religious) principle. So again, bad argument from a legal perspective.

I continue to stand ready to hear a convincing argument.

Lastly, note I said “consensual sexual acts”, no one is arguing the right to privacy is absolute and encompasses license to use hard narcotics.

 

[SaintFrancis333]

There is too much love in this world. - Said No One. Ever.

Yes I will indeed call it love. There is plenty of beauty to be seen in the relationships of two people of the same sex. The problem in our society is we automatically associate it with sex and lust. This is simply not the case for heterosexuals nor for homosexuals.

Nor of course do I find your argument compelling in the slightest. In fact you make a better argument for the prevention of divorce than you do for preventing same-sex unions. I doubt you know of any same-sex couple actively raising children, because if you did you would see they parent just as well as any heterosexual couple. The damage doesn’t come from the relationship, but from those that actively condemn homosexuality.

The bible itself reminds us the concept of marriage has changed over the millenia. It also reminds us to be mindful about making judgments about others especially those that are view as “unfavorable” by society.

That might be your opinion friend, but it is not supported in any way shape or form by fact. Maybe you should try denying yourself and what “you” believe, and look to what God taught. God ordained marriage as He saw fit because it was His will that it be so. If you deny traditional marriage, you deny God. Plain and simple. You don’t get to pick and choose what you want to believe. Either you accept all of God’s teachings (as revealed in Scriptures and through His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) or you believe nothing.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Unrepented homosexual acts unto death results in Hell!

It is an abomination that gay marriage is even discussed.

As long as you discuss it it’s kind of like giving the devil the time of day.

The longer you ponder sin the more likely you will be to engage in it.

Homosexuality is so disgusting it makes me want to vomit.

If more people had that attitude towards it America wouldn’t be going down the TOLERANCE toilet!

Satan fully supports gay marriage.

St. Paul said that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

God the Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to write that.

If you don’t like that then you have a problem with God!

Case closed–but better yet such cases should be dismissed to start with.

My grandmother when confronted with obvious evil would say “The very IDEY of such”.

That is the right attitude.

People shouldn’t even consider the abomination of gay marriage–and more than that to have the government sanction it and destroy the entire society?

How far will America have to go down the sewer until someone can smell it?

Do you think Jesus blesses gay marriage or does the devil bless gay marriage?

 

[Blacksword]

Unrepented homosexual acts unto death results in Hell!

It is an abomination that gay marriage is even discussed.

As long as you discuss it it’s kind of like giving the devil the time of day.

The longer you ponder sin the more likely you will be to engage in it.

Homosexuality is so disgusting it makes me want to vomit.

If more people had that attitude towards it America wouldn’t be going down the TOLERANCE toilet!

Satan fully supports gay marriage.

St. Paul said that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

God the Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to write that.

If you don’t like that then you have a problem with God!

Case closed–but better yet such cases should be dismissed to start with.

My grandmother when confronted with obvious evil would say “The very IDEY of such”.

That is the right attitude.

People shouldn’t even consider the abomination of gay marriage–and more than that to have the government sanction it and destroy the entire society?

How far will America have to go down the sewer until someone can smell it?

Do you think Jesus blesses gay marriage or does the devil bless gay marriage?

I hope this post is a joke or something. The sentiments expressed in here are truly hateful, and make me sad that you could identify as Catholic and be so full of venom towards your fellow human beings.

It is possible to truly love a person and yet disagree very much morally with something they do, but it is not at all possible to love someone and at the same time say they “make me want to vomit”…Christ commanded love above all and first and last. Your post shows not moral disagreement, but outright hatred and bigotry, and it gives ammo to people who say all conservatives or Christians hate gays. Do you realize you’re hurting and not helping?

Lastly, though its pointless I will note again that it is not true at all that “thinking about homosexuality” will make you gay…however I have to wonder about the underlying psychology in your post…

 

[scipio337]

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…

I wasn’t accusing you, just looking for clarification, based on your previous post:

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.

Which seems to suggest that the morality any act that doesn’t infringe on the rights of another is subjective. We have “victimless crimes” such as prostitution and drugs use that could use the same argument. The point being, in any civil society, the government also has a role of promoting societal good, aside from the protection of rights (not granting! ).

If we ask “Why is this law needed” for just about any law, the answer at some point will include a conception of what is good for the community in which the law holds. The inversion of the question makes the point even more clearly. What would provide a rationale for a law or governmental action apart from a moral purpose?

From a legal standpoint, I’d apply a strict scrunity view, and can’t see the compelling state interest for overturning a millenia + of societal rule, vs. passing fads or idiosyncratic preferences.

 

[josh987654321]

I continue to stand ready to hear a convincing argument.

I have been trying to do just that in many of my posts.

Marriage is the coming together to give one self to the other fully which includes sexually, if you disagree with Immoral and Disordered than a homosexual union still shouldn’t be reffered to as a marriage because a homosexual union is just so very different to a heterosexual union, so yes the sexual nature of both unions is very relevant when it comes to marriage and for people or the law to ignore that fact in regards to marriage would be a big mistake I think.

It’s an unjust treatment to equate things in certain aspects that are unequal, such as homosexuality and heterosexuality being viewed as marriage’s.

It would also be a mistake to use the excuse of “privacy” in regards to the law, because with marriage that is like firing a weapon when blind and crippled, without taking into consideration the sexual nature of both unions they cannot make an informed decision whether to conclude that a homosexual union is marriage or not and because of the sexual nature of the union in question, a homosexual union is not marriage and thats what it really comes down to, it’s whether or not you want to pretend that a homosexual union is a marriage and whether they want to force everyone else to play along with an illusion like that.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Well, many satryrs and serial adulterers also “feel” as if that is” who" they are. Remember the character “Alfie” played by Michael Cain? I think that psychology is at best a semi-science, sort of like astrology. So their opinion about what people are really like is to be taken with a pound of salt. Yet they have an enormous amount of credibility with the public.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

There is a maxim: hard cases make bad law. Perfect example is the case of the mass shootings in Connecticut. No new law could prevent an equally horrible event from happening. The worst school killing was done in the 1920s by a man who blew up a school with a bomb. The legal case books are just full of cases that no screen writer is likely to imagine. As for the soaps, they are real life exaggerated, with events happening to a handful of characters which have actually happened to ten thousand in different time sand different places.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

No, more like having a quality, being qualified and having that quality recognized I am not competent to practice medicine. At my age I will never be competent. The law may says that I am, by issuing me a certificate, but that does not give me the skill. The law can recognize me but not empower me to cure.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

It was psychologists and psychiatrists who reduced homosexuality to a sickness of the body rather than of the soul. Then in 1972, unable to find a remedy, they simply changed their minds and declared the homosexual “normal,” well, a normal, Neurotic But of course, they tend to be afflicted by bodily ailment. If you play in the sewer., you get diseases, More so than with woman. Even the best sexual athletes can have sex with relatively few women. With men, much easier to have multiples of sexual partners.

 

[fix]

Sigh. Please explain where I’ve dispalyed any misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the topic…The woman charged with adultery, you mean this: syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/batavia_woman_charged_with_adu.html ?

Yeah the case was pled out and adultery charge dismissed, it would have been ruled unconstitutional if a conviction had resulted, you can bet.

The argument you put forth up above is a non sequitur. It’s logically fallacious as a form of invalid argument from authority (here with “history” or “previous practice and tradition” being the authority appealed to). Just because something has always been that way doesn’t mean it must or even should stay that way. An example: in 1860 one could have quite similarly said “But we’ve always had slaves!!”. That fact doesn’t justify slavery.

You are comparing just laws with unjust laws and then drawing an erroneous conclusion.
BTW, the adultery charge was not dismissed because it was unconstitutional.

Nor does the fact that gays cannot have natural children from their physical union win the day.

It is evidence they cannot ever engage in the marital act.

This only works for one who has already freely accepted the moral theological principles of natural law as taught by the Church.

It works for anyone who holds common sense and an uncorrupted conscience.
People accepted the evilness of homosexual acts and accepted it being illegal long before people were claiming any religious arguments were of no merit.

The Church, and you, must convince people to FREELY chose to accept and follow this teaching. American civil law dos not care a whit for this theological (i.e. religious) principle. So again, bad argument from a legal perspective.

The law without proper moral influence is a tyranny. What you seem to be arguing that anything goes because the few, or many, are unprincipled.

I continue to stand ready to hear a convincing argument.

You do not want to be convinced.

Lastly, note I said “consensual sexual acts”, no one is arguing the right to privacy is absolute and encompasses license to use hard narcotics.

Consent has changed and can be changed again. Is consent your standard?

 

[fix]

Umm, most gays do not feel they have a “sickness of the mind”, they just feel its who they naturally are.

And that is the standard you use to determine things?

They are correct in this sentiment, and the Church agrees.

Where does the Church teach homosexual inclination is not a mental illness?

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.

It is not wrong or dangerous if we choose to adopt your subjectivist view of reality.

 

[fix]

Sorry, but the gay marriage issue aside it is quite correct to say the social construct of marriage has changed greatly over time. Look at the Bible even: the historical norm for marriage was a polygamous patriarchal arrangement where wealthy or powerful men had multiple wives and concubines on the side. Then there was the arranged, political marriage setup of the Middle Ages often seen among the wealthy with recognized rights to mistresses for the male nobles. Oh, and in all such arrangements the woman had zero legal rights and was essentially property the husband paid her family for in taking possession of her. Monogamous life long marriage for love is a Western construct only perhaps about five centuries old! To say it has not changed through time is silly.

When was there “gay” marriage?

 

[RobbyS]

Sigh. Please explain where I’ve dispalyed any misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the topic…The woman charged with adultery, you mean this: syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/batavia_woman_charged_with_adu.html ?

Yeah the case was pled out and adultery charge dismissed, it would have been ruled unconstitutional if a conviction had resulted, you can bet.

The argument you put forth up above is a non sequitur. It’s logically fallacious as a form of invalid argument from authority (here with “history” or “previous practice and tradition” being the authority appealed to). Just because something has always been that way doesn’t mean it must or even should stay that way. An example: in 1860 one could have quite similarly said “But we’ve always had slaves!!”. That fact doesn’t justify slavery.

Nor does the fact that gays cannot have natural children from their physical union win the day. This only works for one who has already freely accepted the moral theological principles of natural law as taught by the Church. The Church, and you, must convince people to FREELY chose to accept and follow this teaching. American civil law dos not care a whit for this theological (i.e. religious) principle. So again, bad argument from a legal perspective.

I continue to stand ready to hear a convincing argument.

Lastly, note I said “consensual sexual acts”, no one is arguing the right to privacy is absolute and encompasses license to use hard narcotics.

American civil law is based on certain principles, which are older than the United States, and which served as a basis for its constitutional principles. You seem to accept a notion of separation of church and state that has only been established since 1947, the acceptance of which has resulted in Supreme Court decisions characterized by great sophistry. Radical judges have used the murky language of its opinions to make judgements based on a falsehood, which is that the separation is absolute. A majority of the count continues to support this idea without stating it clearly. So we get silly decisions such as refusing to allow prayers at football games, using the law to purge customs and usages that are as much a fabric of society as positive law. The same tactic is now being used to change family law. First state a false premise and then proceed to made decisions based on it. You have argued as if the right to privacy were absolute. The Court has confused the issue by denying as you do that this is the case, but then making many decisions as if it were. Justice Kennedy admitted this by making sodomy no more than an act of self-realization, much as another boy might “become a man,” by losing his virginity to a whore.

 

[Elizabeth502]

American civil law is based on certain principles, which are older than the United States, and which served as a basis for its constitutional principles. You seem to accept a notion of separation of church and state that has only been established since 1947, the acceptance of which has resulted in Supreme Court decisions characterized by great sophistry. Radical judges have used the murky language of its opinions to make judgements based on a falsehood, which is that the separation is absolute. A majority of the count continues to support this idea without stating it clearly. So we get silly decisions such as refusing to allow prayers at football games, using the law to purge customs and usages that are as much a fabric of society as positive law. The same tactic is now being used to change family law. First state a false premise and then proceed to made decisions based on it. You have argued as if the right to privacy were absolute. The Court has confused the issue by denying as you do that this is the case, but then making many decisions as if it were. Justice Kennedy admitted this by making sodomy no more than an act of self-realization, much as another boy might “become a man,” by losing his virginity to a whore.

Yes, especially on these observations and extensions of your observations:

*the abandonment of the universal (non-discriminatory) aspects of the oriignal underlying constitutional principles

The replacement of those foundational concepts with a modernistic philosophy, which then controls the assumptions

The subjectivity of such assumptions as the invisible “new” Constitution.

The elevation of selected, contextual principles and assumptions into absolute principles

A disrespect for historical and legal continuity and arbitrary adoption of a functionally different “constitution”*
IOW, crummy, unconstitutional law.

One unmentioned consequence of that has nevertheless been apparent – at the very least since 1973: the public’s increasing cynicism over the branch of government that was intended by Our Founders to be beyond politics and politicking, to be independent and as neutral as possible. The public now really gets it that the Court is up for grabs, politically, has become a tool to manipulate and sculpt, by politicians and by interest groups.

All the Founders are turning in their graves. All of them.