Separation of religious and civil marriage

[Rau]

So much dancing around the point.

‘I have comitted perverted acts’ versus ‘I comit perverted acts on a regular basis’.

I see the difference and so do you. The latter is the phrase in question. Someone who comitts what you consider to be perverted acts on a regular basis.

How do you describe that person?

Tell me the act in question.

 

[Bradski]

Tell me the act in question.

Good grief. How difficult is this…

I have absolutely no idea exactly what you might consider a perverted act. But assuming that the term has a literal meaning to you and you can envisage a person committing perverted acts on a regular basis (whatever they are in your opinion) , then could you please confirm if you would consider the person a pervert?

 

[Rau]

Good grief. How difficult is this…

I have absolutely no idea exactly what you might consider a perverted act. But assuming that the term has a literal meaning to you and you can envisage a person committing perverted acts on a regular basis (whatever they are in your opinion) , then could you please confirm if you would consider the person a pervert?

No. It’s not a word I’d use to describe anyone as a consequence of their penchant for certain acts. I agreed previously that the dictionary indeed defines the word that way however.

You only find this difficult because your predilection to call someone a pervert (apparently) greatly exceeds mine.

BTW - What point were you trying to make be arguing that everyone must surely deem a person who is in the habit of certain “perverted” acts to be “a pervert”?

 

[frobert]

Having sex with someone of the same gender should be enough detail for you.

If someone is constantly and regularly committing what I consider to be perverted acts, I’d have no problem calling that person a pervert. How would you describe that person?

Well that is your opinion based on a faith belief and exhibits your inability to understand human behavior and see beyond a narrow religious worldview.

 

[frobert]

Yes, and before anyone jumps up with outrage and thinks “disordered” is a medical diagnosis, I refer you to this enumeration by example of the theological meaning of that word:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12530647&highlight=disordered#post12530647

Then why did you not state the that “it is the theological meaning of the word” how are those not schooled in theology to discern your meaning. I would go much further and say use the whole theological term “intrinsic disorder” but that too has meaning only in catholic theological circles and not well known or understood outside of those circles. If you intent is to mislead and alienate then you have chosen the right words.

 

[Rau]

Then why did you not state the that “it is the theological meaning of the word” how are those not schooled in theology to discern your meaning. I would go much further and say use the whole theological term “intrinsic disorder” but that too has meaning only in catholic theological circles and not well known or understood outside of those circles. If you intent is to mislead and alienate then you have chosen the right words.

I think my post made the context entirely clear, and follows it up with 10+ examples in the linked post. We are on a Catholic Site, in an Apologetics forum, so we have not strayed too far from Catholic Theological circles!

The expression is “Intrinsically disordered” and refers to acts (which may include thoughts) which are always wrong to choose.

Volunteering an accurate explanation of an oft-misunderstood term used by another person (PRmerger) is hardly an attempt to mislead or alienate. It is quite the reverse.

 

[PRmerger]

That is why I said this:

Yup. And that’s why I said I would admonish this Catholic poster who called you a pervert and tell him that his views are not consonant with Catholicism.

There is no such nomenclature in Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality. The attraction is disordered.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure how you could redefine his actions as I didn’t specify what they were.

I thought we were talking about homosexual sex. No? Are we talking about some gay men who like to eat by candlelight? Or lesbians who prefer their iphone covers to be camouflage?

Please be clear what you were being called a pervert for by a Catholic poster here, hypothetically.

 

[Bradski]

I thought we were talking about homosexual sex. No? Are we talking about some gay men who like to eat by candlelight? Or lesbians who prefer their iphone covers to be camouflage?

Please be clear what you were being called a pervert for by a Catholic poster here, hypothetically.

We have gone back a step to find out under what circumstances you, or anyone else, would call someone a pervert. Call me dumb if you like, but personally it would be when they continually do something I consider perverted.

Forget about gays getting married or having sex. Just consider something you personally believe is perverted behaviour and tell me if you think that a person who indulges in such behaviour a pervert.

If not, then perhaps let me know what you consider the definition of a pervert to be. Other than someone who comitts perverted acts.

 

[PRmerger]

We have gone back a step to find out under what circumstances you, or anyone else, would call someone a pervert. Call me dumb if you like, but personally it would be when they continually do something I consider perverted.

Forget about gays getting married or having sex. Just consider something you personally believe is perverted behaviour and tell me if you think that a person who indulges in such behaviour a pervert.

If not, then perhaps let me know what you consider the definition of a pervert to be. Other than someone who comitts perverted acts.

I don’t use that word to describe people.

Any more than I use the word idiot. Or twit. Or heretic (unless the Church has called him one). Or fatty. Or hell-destined.

Again, as far as homosexuals, I call their acts and their sexual desires disordered.

Just like the Church does.

 

[frobert]

I think my post made the context entirely clear, and follows it up with 10+ examples in the linked post. We are on a Catholic Site, in an Apologetics forum, so we have not strayed too far from Catholic Theological circles!

The expression is “Intrinsically disordered” and refers to acts (which may include thoughts) which are always wrong to choose.

Volunteering an accurate explanation of an oft-misunderstood term used by another person (PRmerger) is hardly an attempt to mislead or alienate. It is quite the reverse.

Many thanks for clearing that up. Now non Catholics who visit will not be mislead. To be certain the correct term is “intrinsically disordered” and not disordered or disorder without the modifier intrinsically?

 

[Rau]

Many thanks for clearing that up. Now non Catholics who visit will not be mislead. To be certain the correct term is “intrinsically disordered” and not disordered or disorder without the modifier intrinsically?

Homosexual sex acts are intrinsically disordered. That is, such acts are disordered, and no change of intention or circumstances can make such acts moral (right to choose).

Calumny, fornication and various other acts are also intrinsically disordered.

The terminology is awkward and sounds like a personal attack for sure. It is easily misunderstood and some people don’t mind that. Extreme anti-gays don’t mind the (false) overtone of mental illness and extreme pro-gays don’t mind the opportunity to portray the church as bigoted. Yet the facts are entirely different. The language in the catechism addresses Acts and Attractions, not the person. It says the Acts are always wrong to choose (“intrinsically disordered”) and it says the Attraction is ordered to acts which are intrinsically evil (“objectively disordered” ie., disordered by virtue of its object). The remaining language calls for the person to be treated with respect. No condemnation of the person.

 

[Mark86]

The more I think about this, the more sense it makes… to separate out civil marriage from religious marriage completely. I honestly don’t see what else would be against the teaching of the Church to simply insist that any Catholic couple who has been Sacramentally married and who wants to be married in the eyes of the law (that is, to be married on paper) to also do so by the civil vendor (the state). Why must legal and sacramental things be mixed at the same time? Why must our ministers stand “in persona state” as well as “in persona christi” when joining man and woman in holy matrimony?

As we know from history, “states” come and go. When the ancient Christians were getting married, did they have decrees from Caesar validating their marriages in the eyes of the Roman provinces? I think it would force the world to understand that Catholic marriages are indeed unique and special and SET APART from the world, that people can be validly married in the eyes of God without having to be legally married in the eyes of the (current) state. It will also show that it’s something gay marriages can never have, despite their insistence on legal equality… they will never be validly married in the eyes of God.

“Let them have their paperwork to validate their civil union… let us have God to validate our Matrimony.”

The only problem with it that I can see is… it may create an environment where civil marriages (which in many states would include gay marriages) may start to be seen as spiritually equal with Sacramental marriages in the eyes of God… when we know they are not.

But aside from that, what’s the problem with this?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Extreme anti-gays don’t mind the (false) overtone of mental illness

Keep in mind there’s a history of the word “disorder” being used to speak of homosexuality in the context of mental health. Homosexuality (that is, finding some one of the same gender sexually attractive irrespective of whether the act of sex is followed) had been labeled as a a form of psychopathy (aka sociopathy). It was listed this way in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I can understand why the use of the word “disorder” might cause one to believe that you are invoking the mental health label that had been associated with the orientation. Especially if that person is not familiar with how you are using it.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t use that word to describe people.

Bradski: Gimme a hand, can ya? I’m stuck on this last clue. 15 across, person who commits perverted acts. P something r.v.e.r.t.
Any given Catholic: Sorry, I’ve got absolutely no idea…

 

[Rau]

Bradski: Gimme a hand, can ya? I’m stuck on this last clue. 15 across, person who commits perverted acts. P something r.v.e.r.t.
Any given Catholic: Sorry, I’ve got absolutely no idea…

Are you asking a puzzle question, that can be answered by reference to the dictionary, or are you asking an individual how he would speak and describe a person?

 

[DrTaffy]

The article by Dwight Duncan Lubin doesn’t declare that there has never been any recognition.

No, they give an assertion watered down to the point that it is more defensible, but even more irrelevant to the modern debate.

But that assertion is a common one in the marriage debate, and has been made here, many many times on this forum and even on this thread. Here, for example:

Or back 150 years, or 300, or 500, or 1,000 or 2,000 or 5,000 or as far back in human history as you wish across the planet. You will find that every society recognized an institution involving publicly acknowledging a relationship between members of the opposite sex, with no equivalent recognition of the same type of institution between members of the same sex.

Now if you agree, as you seem to, that asserting X happened in the past is no sensible argument that X is a good idea, then you would presumably agree that even if no previous civilisation had had same sex marriage that would be irrelevant to whether or not we should do so. So we would be done, surely?

But if you wish to defend the argument that no previous civilisation has had same sex marriage and so we should not, then you first need to prove the assertion that no previous civilisation has had same sex marriage. In the face of the references I gave.

Have you searched for the references that you cited? How can I get hold of those sources to confirm or refute, when they are not all in their original form online?

Whether or not a reference is online is irrelevant to its authority - although on a quick test I was able to find three randomly chosen references online, albeit not necessarily for free. However, I would suggest that learning to use your nearest decent reference library, assuming you have one available, would be your best bet.
(Don’t get me started on paywalls for publicly funded research:nope

In any case, I am not trying to build any argument on the assertion that particular past cultures did have same sex marriage, but reacting to the ‘argument’ that no previous civilisation has had same sex marriage and so we should not. If you wish to defend that ‘argument’ feel free to do so with any source you like - you do not, after all, have to have read “George Devereux, Institutionalized Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians” in order to refute his claim that the Mohave had same sex marriage, you just need to find evidence (online if you wish) proving that they did not.

Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan appear to have got hold on some of the sources and/or have knowledge and/or researched some of the cultures they write about, and you can see for yourself what they have to say.

My point exactly - their arguments are ridiculous. e.g. the argument that the female-female marriages of the Igbo were not ‘marriages’, despite being clearly referred to as such, because some Nigerian they talked to told them that they did not involve sex.

You believe that because they note that Will Roscoe is homosexual, they are dismissing his book?

I think that their references to Will Roscoe speak for themselves. e.g. the phrase “The Zuni Man-Woman turns out to be a work of unusual provenance.” What is unusual about an author writing a book about homosexuality in Native American culture being at least involved with gay Native American groups? And why go on about it so much if they are not trying to infer bias on his part?

I haven’t said on this thread that they have never existed, I have questioned the legal recognition of these marriages. But I am skeptical of some of the claims of where it is claimed they existed, and I think I have a right to question the veracity of some of these claims considering as what said in the previous thread what has been claimed about Jesus and John and Sergius and Bacchus.

Fine. Are you as skeptical when others claim that no previous civilisation has had same sex marriage? If so, even better. Skepticism is good.

I can’t necessarily speak for Dwight Duncan and Peter Lubin but I am talking here about these societies in the context of marriage, which has a long societal history, and the reality is that is that a lot of the examples of homosexual ‘marriage’ historically do seem to come from smaller communities, not from larger civilisations. I am not trying to dismiss entire cultures, but as has been said, I am talking here about these cultures within the larger global framework.

Why does it matter? Rome, Egypt and the Hittites hardly count as small civilisations, but as I pointed out I would expect small tribes to outnumber large Empires.

But if you are not implying that the small cultures do not matter (as Duncan and Lubin seem to) and can be ignored, surely their examples of same sex marriage would be just as valid a refutation of the assertion that no previous civilisation has had same sex marriage as any other?

 

[Rau]

Keep in mind there’s a history of the word “disorder” being used to speak of homosexuality in the context of mental health. Homosexuality (that is, finding some one of the same gender sexually attractive irrespective of whether the act of sex is followed) had been labeled as a a form of psychopathy (aka sociopathy). It was listed this way in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I can understand why the use of the word “disorder” might cause one to believe that you are invoking the mental health label that had been associated with the orientation. Especially if that person is not familiar with how you are using it.

Yes, I know. The Church uses the words disorder and disordered with an entirely different meaning and over a wide range of areas, not limited to the present subject. The misunderstanding is understandable. And sometimes it is not genuine…

There would be much merit in changing the language used in this area simply to avoid that confusion and it consequences.

 

[Bradski]

Are you asking a puzzle question, that can be answered by reference to the dictionary, or are you asking an individual how he would speak and describe a person?

What I am doing is pointing out the blazingly obvious fact quite a few Catholics (with notable exceptions) have no problem at all in telling people what they do in their private lives is perverted. Using that exact term. Those same Catholics will then spend an inordinate amount of time denying that anyone could possibly consider that they are actually accusing those persons of being perverts.

Maybe some of them really are bemused by the reaction to such emotive terms. But there are a few who know very well what they are doing and use the term in the most pejorative sense. You can almost hear the thump of the keystrokes as they type it. But ask them if they are calling your niece/work colleague/friend/partner a pervert and they will grit their teeth and do their best to convince you that that isn’t what they meant.

 

[1newcatholic]

What I am doing is pointing out the blazingly obvious fact quite a few Catholics (with notable exceptions) have no problem at all in telling people what they do in their private lives is perverted. Using that exact term. Those same Catholics will then spend an inordinate amount of time denying that anyone could possibly consider that they are actually accusing those persons of being perverts.

Maybe some of them really are bemused by the reaction to such emotive terms. But there are a few who know very well what they are doing and use the term in the most pejorative sense. You can almost hear the thump of the keystrokes as they type it. But ask them if they are calling your niece/work colleague/friend/partner a pervert and they will grit their teeth and do their best to convince you that that isn’t what they meant.

This is true. Many people are tone-deaf to the way their words affect others. That’s why the Church has spent so much time very recently taking a closer look at the way it has formulated and communicated its position on homosexuality. Although the intentions of the Church seem noble, in the past they have created an environment where the homophobia of the world thrives in the environs of the Church. I think they’re seeking a way to avoid that without giving the appearance of totally embracing homosexuality.