Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rosejmj said:
It is possible due to people growing up faster that they were at a better place than most teenagers today though. Even if parents were able to choose a suitable spouse for teens, I would think they are too immature these days for such a big life change
Click to expand...
today’s teens are far less mature.

My great-grandmother was married by 14, had two kids, was widowed, had her first son die, and was re-married again all by the time she was 18 or 19.

Both of her husbands were older than than her.

My Grandmother (born during the Great Depression) would walk almost 1/4 of mile though a cow field to the well get water, while watching her little brother. She was only 5 years old at the time.

My other grandmother (born in 1929) was married after she graduated high school at 17 (she didn’t turn 18 until October) and was a mother before she turned 19.

Kids back in those days were basically put to work by the time they could talk and walk. By the time they were teens, they were adults.

In the 18th Century, the British Navy had junor grade officers (called Midshipmen) back then who were as young as 14 years old. It was not uncommon for a British ship to have a handful of young men under 18 ordering around much older enlisted men on the boats.

So, if a 15 year old was old enough to fight for his country (as an officer) in the 18th century, they why wouldn’t he be old enough to marry?
 
Last edited:
Probably not because I would try to get it through the Supreme Court because I want it federally mandated in all 50 states.
[/quote]

What I mean is, you’d do this without a mandate.
 
I skipped to the last sentence. I couldn’t be bothered to read the same old arguments. But who is ‘we’?
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
rosejmj:
It is possible due to people growing up faster that they were at a better place than most teenagers today though. Even if parents were able to choose a suitable spouse for teens, I would think they are too immature these days for such a big life change
Click to expand...
today’s teens are far less mature.

My great-grandmother was married by 14, had two kids, was widowed, had her first son die, and was re-married again all by the time she was 18 or 19.

Both of her husbands were older than than her.

My Grandmother (born during the Great Depression) would walk almost 1/4 of mile though a cow field to the well get water, while watching her little brother. She was only 5 years old at the time.

My other grandmother (born in 1929) was married after she graduated high school at 17 (she didn’t turn 18 until October) and was a mother before she turned 19.

Kids back in those days were basically put to work by the time they could talk and walk. By the time they were teens, they were adults.

In the 18th Century, the British Navy had junor grade officers (called Midshipmen) back then who were as young as 14 years old. It was not uncommon for a British ship to have a handful of young men under 18 ordering around much older enlisted men on the boats.

So, if a 15 year old was old enough to fight for his country (as an officer) in the 18th century, they why wouldn’t he be old enough to marry?
Click to expand...
And I used to live in paper bag in middle t’road.

 
Figure of speech the government or society.
[/quote]

But society doesn’t want any of that done. For example, the vast majority agree with ssm. We live in the real world, not a world where you get to make the rules for some personal moral utopia on behalf of the people.

I’m really not sure what the point is you are trying to make.
 
A secular nation should not be influenced by religion even though many of the public systems are based ecclesiastically

The clergy should decide for its own interest.

The state should decide for the majorities interest.
 
Last edited:
That sounds relativistic like the rest of the bizarre things that are the so called norm.

[/quote]

You think that a government that does the people’s bidding is ‘relatavistic’? Funny how that term only appears when the situation is something one disagrees with.

So if you get what you want it’s because your views are correct but if society gets what it wants then it’s bizzare and a ‘so called’ norm.

Actually, it’s not ‘so called’. It is the norm. If you want to change it then, like @buffalo, you’ll need to find someone to vote for that will help you make the changes you want.

How’s your voting preferences going so far? Making any progress?
 
I answered the question as to what I think should morally happen in this country or the changes a politician should attempt to make as a Catholic.

[/quote]

Here’s where we differ. We have representatives for a reason. They are meant to represent us. The clue is in the name. So if you have certain policies you want put forward then you need to vote for someone who will do that as your representative.

The rep shouldn’t be putting forward anything that he or she didn’t stand on. They wouldn’t have a mandate to do so. Call me old fashioned, but I like the system. It’s not perfect but it means that society generally ends up where it wants to be.

And if I don’t like your answers it’s because your answers I don’t like. Nothing more. Nothing personal. No axe grinding here. We bounce some ideas around, we put forward our views and we keep it nice and polite. Seems to be working just fine from where I’m sitting.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough it seemed like you were upset by the ideas I have and I clearly misinterpreted you.

The way I was answering the questions was in the hypothetical that I suceeded and what the results would be if I was a successful Catholic President who could argue to the people the natural law and Christian morality.
[/quote]

That’s fine, Gov. And yeah, if you had a mandate then you’d be fully in your right to implement your policies as you saw fit. I wouldn’t be happy but that would be my problem. It would be a fair and honest procedure.

Just bear in mind that it works two ways. I know you’re not happy with the general situation but that’s your problem. But it’s been a fair and honest procedure.

Well…mostly.
 
Freddy said:
Probably not because I would try to get it through the Supreme Court because I want it federally mandated in all 50 states.
Click to expand...
What I mean is, you’d do this without a mandate.
[/quote]

Any time SSM was voted on in the US, prior to the Supreme Court judgement, it was rejected.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
Freddy:
Probably not because I would try to get it through the Supreme Court because I want it federally mandated in all 50 states.
Click to expand...
What I mean is, you’d do this without a mandate.
Click to expand...
Any time SSM was voted on in the US, prior to the Supreme Court judgement, it was rejected.
[/quote]

We’re talking about what the government should or should not be allowed to do. And two thirds of the population has no problem with it.
 
Do you actually believe that? Given the complete lack of success of any government that tried to stop any of these things being done throughout history? Yes, there are and were nations who punished such activities severely, but none of them ever stamped them out, they just kept punishing the ones they could catch.
 
whatistrue said:
Yes, there are and were nations who punished such activities severely, but none of them ever stamped them out, they just kept punishing the ones they could catch.
Click to expand...
There are also still murders, robberies and rapes. Maybe they should be legal too?
 
I never said it was a good thing or shouldn’t be regulated. I was commenting on the assertion that it could be enforced so that there were none.
 
Freddy said:
So if you get what you want it’s because your views are correct but if society gets what it wants then it’s bizzare and a ‘so called’ norm.
Click to expand...
This whole ‘society gets what it wants’ argument is a funny one.

Freddy why do you think a long time ago the idea of gay marriage was a no-no, let alone stuff like transgenderism or gender fluidity, which would have been completely laughable?

Why suddenly now are the majority pro gay marriage and pro abortion? You don’t think it has anything to do with who runs education, who runs the media? These people shape the cultural narrative.

So it isn’t so much that it’s what the majority wants, as it is, what the majority has been taught to want.

Just to clear too, I’m not saying that beliefs from the past are always better than beliefs in the present, before you try to bring up that interracial marriage used to be illegal or something similar. I’m simply saying that I don’t believe the elites, the people who runs things, ever want to give the people what they want. They wouldn’t afford people that much power. They tell them what is good and what they should want, and the people eat it up.
 
A nation that has high moral standards in their laws is one of less cost, more peace, less law enforcement, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top