Should the state marry gay lovers?

[Mulepadre]

Thank you for providing a reasoned analysis. I am not an expert in Catholicism so I do not know the exact referent for “Her Sacred Tradition.” Also, why does that tradition need to be static? Is there no room for the Church to grow in the guidance of the Holy Spirit? You seem to speak of “culture” and “secular institutions” a bit disparagingly, namely, that they are in stark opposition to the Church. I’m just not convinced this is a proper model. We don’t have to get into a discussion of Niebuhr or anything. I’d just like some clarification.

Walrus,

Sacred Tradition is considered unchanging in Catholicism in the same way that we say that Sacred Scripture cannot be rewritten, only understood and applied (for example the moral understanding Jesus gave of the prohibition to never kill the innocent. So we try in modern times to define and apply ‘innocence’, such as the nature of the child in the womb). I do speak of modern culture in a disparaging way inasmuch as I see it becoming secularized and atheistic. I am a priest (a former Architect) and I have dedicated my life to just the opposite agenda: a world of reason “enlightened” by the light of faith.
What did Neibuhr write about, if you don’t mind my asking without looking it up for myself?

By the way, thanks for the respect you are all showing me…

Father Mike

www.smaria.org/introlenca.htm

 

[thewalrus]

Walrus,

Sacred Tradition is considered unchanging in Catholicism in the same way that we say that Sacred Scripture cannot be rewritten, only understood and applied (for example the moral understanding Jesus gave of the prohibition to never kill the innocent. So we try in modern times to define and apply ‘innocence’, such as the nature of the child in the womb). I do speak of modern culture in a disparaging way inasmuch as I see it becoming secularized and atheistic. I am a priest (a former Architect) and I have dedicated my life to just the opposite agenda: a world of reason “enlightened” by the light of faith.
What did Neibuhr write about, if you don’t mind my asking without looking it up for myself?

By the way, thanks for the respect you are all showing me…

Father Mike

www.smaria.org/introlenca.htm

So, according to that definition, I can appreciate the idea that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are “unchanging,” although I do think it’s based on some outdated hermeneutical theories, which brings me to my next point. You say they cannot change but they still must be applied (hence the abortion example you gave). Thus, could it not be the case that the Church apply Scripture and Tradition in ways that are more applicable to modern times? In my understanding, this was the basis of most of the changes in Vatican II.

I agree on your point about the secularization of culture but I do not necessarily agree that that is a bad thing. I think that those who preach and embody the gospel must do so in a new language and form now. I am heavily influenced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer here and his ideas on “nonreligious Christianity.” I recommend him for some good reading (although he is quite Lutheran so there will be some obvious philosophical and religious differences).

By Niebuhr, I meant H. Richard Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture”. He describes several ways the two can relate theologically.

 

[Spire]

So many people are missing the point. Talking about things that come further down the road.

Should the state marry gay lovers?

No they shouldn’t because they can’t and it’s impossible.

Ok, so now that is taken care of, the next question and I assume the real question(under the disguise of above) is:

Should marriage have a new definition?

The answer is still no. Why? Well…

Is the following the same?

1. Male and Female.
2. Male and Male.

No they are not.

Is the following the same?

1. Sexual Intercourse.
2. Sodomy.

No they are not.

Is the following the same?

1. Ability to create life between the two and pass DNA to a child.
2. Ability to… stand there and look at each other.

No they are not.

Should we “murder” a word so that we can magically believe, that in which the above, 1. and 2. are similiar?

No.

This really has nothing to do with Church and State, Gays and Straights, etc.

Homosexual lovers can have their civil unions or they can create another name for it.

I’ll even throw in a random name generator to help.

rinkworks.com/namegen/

 

[thewalrus]

So many people are missing the point. Talking about things that come further down the road.

Should the state marry gay lovers?

No they shouldn’t because they can’t and it’s impossible.

Ok, so now that is taken care of, the next question and I assume the real question(under the disguise of above) is:

Should marriage have a new definition?

The answer is still no. Why? Well…

Is the following the same?

1. Male and Female.
2. Male and Male.

No they are not.

Is the following the same?

1. Sexual Intercourse.
2. Sodomy.

No they are not.

Is the following the same?

1. Ability to create life between the two and pass DNA to a child.
2. Ability to… stand there and look at each other.

No they are not.

Should we “murder” a word so that we can magically believe, that in which the above, 1. and 2. are similiar?

No.

This really has nothing to do with Church and State, Gays and Straights, etc.

Homosexual lovers can have their civil unions or they can create another name for it.

I’ll even throw in a random name generator to help.

rinkworks.com/namegen/

Is the following the same?

1. Spire’s post
2. Reason

No, it is not.

Hurry up, mulepadre, I’d like to keep a decent discussion going.

 

[Spire]

Is the following the same?

1. Spire’s post
2. Reason

No, it is not.

Hurry up, mulepadre, I’d like to keep a decent discussion going.

Well, well we got a thinker…

So you agree that a male and female is the same as a male and another male.

So also agree that sexual intercourse is the same as sodomy.

You also agree that a male and male having sexual intercourse(stated above) can have a child with DNA from each person.

 

[thewalrus]

Well, well we got a thinker…

So you agree that a male and female is the same as a male and another male.

So also agree that sexual intercourse is the same as sodomy.

You also agree that a male and male having sexual intercourse(stated above) can have a child with DNA from each person.

Mulepadre, you let me down…

Spire, no, I just think those distinctions have nothing to do with anything. Once you develop the skill of nuanced reasoning, we can talk further, but those statements reflect a terrible lack of understanding of the issues.

 

[Spire]

Mulepadre, you let me down…

Spire, no, I just think those distinctions have nothing to do with anything. Once you develop the skill of nuanced reasoning, we can talk further, but those statements reflect a terrible lack of understanding of the issues.

Excellent display of denial.

 

[thewalrus]

Excellent display of denial.

Yes indeed.

 

[Nepenthe]

He denied nothing particularly, except that you are a skilled, informed, and reasonable debater, which you are very evidently not.

 

[Spire]

He denied nothing particularly, except that you are a skilled, informed, and reasonable debater, which you are very evidently not.

That makes no sense.

Funny how he failed to respond to any of the points.

Ad hominem is common tactic for side stepping logical propositions too… or so it seems.

 

[Spire]

He denied nothing particularly, except that you are a skilled, informed, and reasonable debater, which you are very evidently not.

Oh and since your going to step up to the plate, I’ll be more than happy to pitch.

Do you, Nepenthe, think that a couple of a male and female and a male and male are the same.

Do you, Nepenthe, think that sexual intercourse and sodomy are the same

Do you, Nepenthe, think a male and female performing sexual intercourse(or appearently, sodomy) and giving life to a child with DNA from each person is the same as a male and male not being able to do so?

 

[Arclight]

Your scenario is captivating but I really wish you’d skip to the chase. When are these homo’s gonna start eatin’ our chillins?

I can’t agree. The scenario was captivating but it fell just short of true greatness because of the last image of dancing mice. Far better would have been to steal Bergman’s iconic dance of death that closes The Seventh Seal, and have us all being led over the hilltop by – wait for it – a figure of Gay Death.
http://www.bergmanorama.com/gallery6/seventh-5c.jpg

 

[thewalrus]

So many people are missing the point. Talking about things that come further down the road.

Should the state marry gay lovers?

No they shouldn’t because they can’t and it’s impossible.

Ok, so now that is taken care of, the next question and I assume the real question(under the disguise of above) is:

Should marriage have a new definition?

The answer is still no. Why? Well…

Is the following the same?

1. Male and Female.
2. Male and Male.

No they are not.

Is the following the same?

1. Sexual Intercourse.
2. Sodomy.

No they are not.

Is the following the same?

1. Ability to create life between the two and pass DNA to a child.
2. Ability to… stand there and look at each other.

No they are not.

Should we “murder” a word so that we can magically believe, that in which the above, 1. and 2. are similiar?

No.

This really has nothing to do with Church and State, Gays and Straights, etc.

Homosexual lovers can have their civil unions or they can create another name for it.

I’ll even throw in a random name generator to help.

rinkworks.com/namegen/

Spire, did you drown kittens on occasion as a child? Sorry, some ad hominems are too good to pass up.

First, you ask “should the state marry gay lovers?” and answer it with “no, because they can’t and it’s impossible.” That makes no sense as the state can indeed redefine marriage and thus marry those of the same sex.

Second, you ask “should marriage have a new definition?” and answer “no” by asking your series of questions concerning obvious distinctions (well, except for sodomy and sexual intercourse, which is actually a strange distinction).

The problem Spire, is that it doesn’t work well to craft your rhetoric as if you are stating the obvious when what is the most obvious is that you are basing everything you are saying on a presupposition of marriage only being between a male and female who can reproduce. Why is that important? Because the whole thread is about whether that presupposition needs to be reconsidered. So basically your argument comes full circle and only brings us back to the initial question, which is a waste of time. Cheers.

 

[thewalrus]

I can’t agree. The scenario was captivating but it fell just short of true greatness because of the last image of dancing mice. Far better would have been to steal Bergman’s iconic dance of death that closes The Seventh Seal, and have us all being led over the hilltop by – wait for it – a figure of Gay Death.
http://www.bergmanorama.com/gallery6/seventh-5c.jpg

lol I love it!! Such a great movie, too.

 

[Nepenthe]

I’m not stepping up to any plate, at least until you hone your discussion and debating skills, but I don’t mind answering those three questions.

1. The same? Of course not, since every couple (or single, or larger group) of consenting adults is different enough to deserve treatment if they wish as individual instances in any case, but for legal purposes, I see no reason at all why the sex of the partners should be an obstacle to the rights of union.

2)Sodomy IS a form of sexual intercourse, as is oral sex (considered sodomy also, by some) or mutual masturbation and so forth, in the same way that civil dialogue, whispering sweet nothings, and screaming at each other are all forms of verbal intercourse.

3)Of course they aren’t the same. But by that token, do you think a 80 year old man and woman should not be legally permitted to marry?

Please, apply what reason you have to your questions and premises before letting fly in a thread very specifically intended by Fr. Michael for serious discussion of legal matters and civil rights.

I’m sorry if you want to live in a theocracy - perhaps you’d feel more comfortable in Saudi Arabia or Spain at the time of Ferdinand and Isabella. At least the first option is possible, or perhaps you can set up your own nation and write its constitution. Good luck with that.

 

[Spire]

Spire, did you drown kittens on occasion as a child? Sorry, some ad hominems are too good to pass up.

Excellent head on your shoulders you got there.

First, you ask “should the state marry gay lovers?” and answer it with “no, because they can’t and it’s impossible.” That makes no sense as the state can indeed redefine marriage and thus marry those of the same sex.

Good thing the question wasn’t:

“Does the state have the power to redefine marrige?”

Second, you ask “should marriage have a new definition?” and answer “no” by asking your series of questions concerning obvious distinctions (well, except for sodomy and sexual intercourse, which is actually a strange distinction).

Ok… So then your saying no it shouldn’t or are you side-stepping? I can’t tell.

The problem Spire, is that it doesn’t work well to craft your rhetoric as if you are stating the obvious when what is the most obvious is that you are basing everything you are saying on a presupposition of marriage only being between a male and female who can reproduce.

It’s not rhetoric, it is the definition and the law.

Why is that important?

Reproduction plays a big part and must be taken into account when trying to ‘compare’ and ultimately join homosexual activities to being equal with heterosexual marriage.

Because the whole thread is about whether that presupposition needs to be reconsidered.

It is not though… I guess that’s your problem. Comprehension.

So basically your argument comes full circle and only brings us back to the initial question, which is a waste of time. Cheers.

No, it comes down to persons side stepping the obvious and using ad hominem to distract from the point.

Cheers.

 

[Arclight]

…Thus we acknowledge the State as having her own authority to establish and regulate juridical entities, such as marriage, which she ought to and does.

So homosexual marriage would then be held to be a ‘juridical’ or legal entity with its own rights, norms and privileges in society. …

Any competent attorney can draw up documents for a gay couple that duplicate most of the default rights and duties of civil marriage So either your beef is with the term “marriage”, which at this point is reduced to just a label and not worth even a fraction of the ink and opprobrium spilled thus far, or you are suggesting that gays be stripped of such property, testate and contract rights because the result too closely mimics traditional civil marriage.

So what do you propose to do with a gay couple that has put all of their belongings into joint tenancy, names each other as life insurance beneficiaries and beneficiaries under their wills, transacts business as a partnership? Because that’s very, very, very close to what civil marriage is under the law, except for the label. Is a label worth all this vitriol?

We live in a society with certain economic liberties and a constitutional mandate to treat all people equally absent good reasons. Gay quasi-marital arrangements are an inevitable consequence of this. The choice is clear: make a legislative decision to either deny gays all these rights or deny none of them.

 

[Spire]

I’m not stepping up to any plate, at least until you hone your discussion and debating skills, but I don’t mind answering those three questions.

Ad hominem. My point is simple and clear.

1. The same? Of course not, since every couple (or single, or larger group) of consenting adults is different enough to deserve treatment if they wish as individual instances in any case, but for legal purposes, I see no reason at all why the sex of the partners should be an obstacle to the rights of union.

Cool, so you agree that it is not the same and therefore homosexual activies can not be marriage, called marrige, etc.

2)Sodomy IS a form of sexual intercourse, as is oral sex (considered sodomy also, by some) or mutual masturbation and so forth, in the same way that civil dialogue, whispering sweet nothings, and screaming at each other are all forms of verbal intercourse.

Sodomy isn’t a form of anything other than… sodomy. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called sodomy. I can’t go into graphic details here but I ‘hope’ understand the difference.

Also sodomy was in fact illegal in some states up until recently. Also sodomy is mentioned in the bible. Sodomy is not Sexual Intercourse in any way.

3)Of course they aren’t the same. But by that token, do you think a 80 year old man and woman should not be legally permitted to marry?

I’m not letting you derail the topic, so I won’t respond. (It’s appearent you know what I ment anyways.)

Please, apply what reason you have to your questions and premises before letting fly in a thread very specifically intended by Fr. Michael for serious discussion of legal matters and civil rights.

Legally? Ok, marrige is only aplicable and legal for a male and female.

Want more? Since it is illegal, it should not be done, cannot be done, and will not be done, until what I brought to light takes place.

I’m sorry if you want to live in a theocracy - perhaps you’d feel more comfortable in Saudi Arabia or Spain at the time of Ferdinand and Isabella. At least the first option is possible, or perhaps you can set up your own nation and write its constitution. Good luck with that.

?.. :yawn:

 

[Nepenthe]

Now who’s sidestepping? I had no intention of ad hominem, nor do I think I committed it. Somebody can be correct even if they aren’t very informed or capable. It doesn’t happen very often, regarding anything more complex than, say, tying one’s shoes, but it happens. I was simply observing that you really aren’t very good at this. Nobody is, unless they practice, practice, practice, and learn the theoretical basics as well as thorough inquiry on the topical specifics regarding the issue at hand.

Nor did I derail or attempt to derail the topic. I was merely asking as an aside, in an attempt to facilitate meaningful exchange of thoughts.

Debate is not my strongest forensic skill either! (Although I’m pretty good at it when it is called for ). Discussion and oratory are more my forte.

And no, I did not agree to your premises. I thought that was clear, but I am restating it. This is about legality and civil rights, not what anyone’s religion or otherwise-held preconceptions may be.

Okay, rock on, and if that didn’t get through, reread until you comprehend.

 

[Spire]

Now who’s sidestepping? I had no intention of ad hominem, nor do I think I committed it. Somebody can be correct even if they aren’t very informed or capable. It doesn’t happen very often, regarding anything more complex than, say, tying one’s shoes, but it happens. I was simply observing that you really aren’t very good at this. Nobody is, unless they practice, practice, practice, and learn the theoretical basics as well as through inquiry on the topical specifics regarding the issue at hand.

More ad hominem!? Anyways, I’ll consider the source.

Debate is not my strongest forensic skill either! (Although I’m pretty good at it when it is called for ). Discussion and oratory are more my forte.

And no, I did not agree to your premises. I thought that was clear, but I am restating it. This is about legality and civil rights, not what anyone’s religion or otherwise-held preconceptions may be.

As a Catholic this where I offer my hand to help you back up. We all fall down no worries.

So if you didn’t agree to my premises, yet you acknowledged that they were not the same…

Okay, rock on, and if that didn’t get through, reread until you comprehend.

k.