F
fix
Guest
There is no equality or justice in redefining marriage. Not unlike calling an elephant an ant becuase we want them to be equal.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
God does not bless evil actions. He may allow them, but they are not blessed.
There is no logical reason the state cannot continue to redefine marriage once it allows this deviation.
M
Mulepadre
Guest
Let me jump in before I go to work…
This Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, “Humanae Vitae”, on the Regulation of Birth (July 25, 1968)
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
This is an expression of the Church’s “Sacred Tradition” I have been talking about. Note that the teaching reveals two essential qualities that must be inherent for the marital act to be Blessed by God: Love and Procreation. These cannot be separated in the sexual act… If you follow the arguments of those opposing the blessing or legitimizing of Gay marriage they will circle mostly around this point.
So as Catholics we do ultimately have to give the consent of “Faith” to this, that is believe that God inspired it. It is okay to doubt, as long as we seek to resolve those doubts without rejecting the Church’s teaching authority. Otherwise there is no blessing.
We pray for God to give us the ability to grasp what He is teaching. Little did we know at the time (1968) how “prophetic” the points here would be for all questions yesterday, today and tomorrow regarding sexual morality.
Conjugal Love
8. Conjugal love reveals its true nature and nobility when it is considered in its supreme origin, God, who is love, “the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named”.
Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communication of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives.
**Its Characteristics **
9. Under this light, there clearly appear the characteristic marks and demands of conjugal love, and it is of supreme importance to have an exact idea of these.
This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time.
…this love is faithful and exclusive until death. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny.
And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents”.
Responsible Parenthood
10. …In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, …but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.
Respect for the Nature and Purpose of the Marriage Act
11. …the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
**Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation **
12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood. **We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seizing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. **
**Faithfulness to God’s Design **
13. … In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. “Human life is sacred,” Pope John XXIII recalled; “from its inception it reveals the creating hand of God”. *
This is a Catholic Forum where we discuss in order to try to understand Catholic teaching…
This Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, “Humanae Vitae”, on the Regulation of Birth (July 25, 1968)
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
This is an expression of the Church’s “Sacred Tradition” I have been talking about. Note that the teaching reveals two essential qualities that must be inherent for the marital act to be Blessed by God: Love and Procreation. These cannot be separated in the sexual act… If you follow the arguments of those opposing the blessing or legitimizing of Gay marriage they will circle mostly around this point.
So as Catholics we do ultimately have to give the consent of “Faith” to this, that is believe that God inspired it. It is okay to doubt, as long as we seek to resolve those doubts without rejecting the Church’s teaching authority. Otherwise there is no blessing.
We pray for God to give us the ability to grasp what He is teaching. Little did we know at the time (1968) how “prophetic” the points here would be for all questions yesterday, today and tomorrow regarding sexual morality.
Conjugal Love
8. Conjugal love reveals its true nature and nobility when it is considered in its supreme origin, God, who is love, “the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named”.
Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communication of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives.
**Its Characteristics **
9. Under this light, there clearly appear the characteristic marks and demands of conjugal love, and it is of supreme importance to have an exact idea of these.
This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time.
…this love is faithful and exclusive until death. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny.
And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents”.
Responsible Parenthood
10. …In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, …but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.
Respect for the Nature and Purpose of the Marriage Act
11. …the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
**Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation **
12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood. **We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seizing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. **
**Faithfulness to God’s Design **
13. … In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. “Human life is sacred,” Pope John XXIII recalled; “from its inception it reveals the creating hand of God”. *
This is a Catholic Forum where we discuss in order to try to understand Catholic teaching…
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Quite so, Mulepadre, and I do understand those principles even though I am not Catholic, Christian, nor any other faith. However, since the separation of religion and state is vital and fundamental to US law, that was what I was trying to pursue here. 
I know you know that, likely better than I - but not everyone makes the distinction clearly.
I know you know that, likely better than I - but not everyone makes the distinction clearly.
E
edwest2
Guest
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2004/03/11/Opinion/Guest.Opinion.Gay.Marriage.Is.Not.A.Civil.Rights.Issue-632124.shtml
Peace,
Ed
media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2004/03/11/Opinion/Guest.Opinion.Gay.Marriage.Is.Not.A.Civil.Rights.Issue-632124.shtml
Peace,
Ed
A
Arclight
Guest
Well, that settles that. Thanks, Ed.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
There cannot be a totally separation of Church and State in the way that you seem to understand it. As long as there are people of faith, that faith cannot be cut out of their being, their thoughts or how they look at the world. A person brings to the table of discussion all that makes up that person. If that person’s values are rooted in their faith then those values goes with them in all areas of their life, to work, to play, Church and the ballot box.Quite so, Mulepadre, and I do understand those principles even though I am not Catholic, Christian, nor any other faith. However, since the separation of religion and state is vital and fundamental to US law, that was what I was trying to pursue here.
I know you know that, likely better than I - but not everyone makes the distinction clearly.
On the issue of morality, including what is and is not proper sexual relationships and what is and is not the purpose of marriage, the the “gay” community is asking the Christian to cut part of their themselves out of their essence. It cannot be done.
This whole issue isn’t really about marriage. This push for “Gay” marriage isn’t about equal rights. It is a politcal ploy being used by a minute minority to silence any speech or discussion about the morality or immorality of homosexuality. To silence the voice of the Church, the voice of God.
Here is the best example of what it is really all about, manipulation of a selfish indvidual that wants to have things their way no matter who it hurts or the destruction it leads to the whole of society.
Debating abilities or not, the truth is clearer then the debaters would like one to believe.
*For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I will catch the wise in their own craftiness. *
1 Corinthians 3:19
A
Arclight
Guest
And here all I thought is that they wanted to be left alone. Instead, its a nefarious plot to silence the Church. Very subtle scheming there.
Do you think it best if we stripped gays of all the quasi-marital rights they’ve accumulated without the blanket rights given in civil marriage?
P
Publisher
Guest
Not all Christians agree with you…I am a Christian…I am a Quaker…I do not believe in the Catholic stance toward gay and lesbian relationships…since the Society of Friends accepts “gay marriage” then so should the state since we too are Christians. We need our voice to be heard and recongnized. Why can’t our religious beliefs be the ones that influence the states decision instead of Catholic beliefs?
I
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Manipulation by selfish individuals is, de facto, pretty much what the practice of law is all about, in every time and place, wouldn’t you say, Publisher? A bit cynical, but there you are…
Nevertheless, we can strive to uphold certain ideals. Some may remain under the purview of various peoples’ faiths, but the US Constitution explicitly states that such is a matter between those people and their churches, temples, groves and whatnot, and the state’s bailiwick must include attempting the Sisyphean, bogglingly enormous task of ascertaining and applying both the weal and will of all members of its citizenry regardless of religious, racial, sexual (etc.) affiliation or lack thereof, no matter how small the minority nor the size of the majority where secular law is concerned. A bit idealist, but again, there you are…
Nevertheless, we can strive to uphold certain ideals. Some may remain under the purview of various peoples’ faiths, but the US Constitution explicitly states that such is a matter between those people and their churches, temples, groves and whatnot, and the state’s bailiwick must include attempting the Sisyphean, bogglingly enormous task of ascertaining and applying both the weal and will of all members of its citizenry regardless of religious, racial, sexual (etc.) affiliation or lack thereof, no matter how small the minority nor the size of the majority where secular law is concerned. A bit idealist, but again, there you are…
A
Arclight
Guest
The guiding rule for the government should be: leave people alone, let them make good or bad choices, moral or immoral ones, unless there’s a good reason to interfere.Manipulation by selfish individuals is, de facto, pretty much what the practice of law is all about, in every time and place, wouldn’t you say, Publisher? A bit cynical, but there you are…
Nevertheless, we can strive to uphold certain ideals. Some may remain under the purview of various peoples’ faiths, but the US Constitution explicitly states that such is a matter between those people and their churches, temples, groves and whatnot, and the state’s bailiwick must include attempting the Sisyphean, bogglingly enormous task of ascertaining and applying both the weal and will of all members of its citizenry regardless of religious, racial, sexual (etc.) affiliation or lack thereof, no matter how small the minority nor the size of the majority where secular law is concerned. A bit idealist, but again, there you are…
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Yeah. Uh, that’s pretty much what I said, just less verbose. 
T
The_Smiter
Guest
Legal reasons - you can argue that until the cows come home.
Our legal system evolved from religious beliefs from the dearliest days of mankind. It has never (until recently) been poermissible for homosexuals to form a union that is equal to marriage because it is observably and objectively not natural - you can’t make babies naturally and in nature male and female are needed to create life and in many instances with the higher life forms (of which humans are one) both sexes are preferred and indeed, necessary to raise children of either sex.
To resolve my position on legality for a moment - I believe that the state should allow anyone to form civil unions that serve their efficient and productive means - two widowers (Male) both forming a civil union because of financial issues that would protect either and both of them in their old age. Also the extension of medical benefits to workers who happen to be single - why should a married couple get a spouse and children covered just because they have them? It becomes a work benefit that if extended to one, should be extended to all to do as one sees fit. But you don’t need homosexual “marriage” to do this.
Marriage has always been understood, considered and codified as being a union (with spiritual overtones) between one man and one woman. To redefine this cornerstone of society to meet the percieved inequity by some groups is a vanity and not in the best interests of a society. Because marriage really exists (in a societal sense) to procure protection and care for progeny and to advance future generations. And sicne no one can produce any kind of scripture or any holy writing sof any philosophy and faith that endorse homosexual unions, then the common ground that everyone has to go on is that which all societies (irrespective of religious backfround) have promoted - heterosexual marriage.
Everyone pays lip service to doing what is best for children in a society. Why is it then that car mechanics are paid more than teachers and child caregivers? Mechanics do a good job, but really - they are just taking care of our cars and not the precious cargo that rides in them (NOT a dig on mechanics - just making a point!). But what is the first thing that the LGBT movement concentrate on? ME, ME,. ME, ME.
Can two men raise a child and have it be healty and well cared for? Sure. But that is not the IDEAL. And the IDEAL is ALWAYS what ALL people should be striving for. “I had to divorce my wife because she was abusing the children and we needed to be safe.” Care for the children trumped the IDEAL for the wife staying in the picture. But it does not DIMINISh the IMPORTANCE of the IDEAL. This is the point that seems to be continually lost in the debate - what is best for the kids?
Perhaps the jury is still out on the children who are being raised by same-sex couples. But from my experience in social work, I can not say that I have seen positive results. My experiences are anecdotal but they are numerous. We will see how things progress. It is just sad that the guinea pigs in theis sociological experiement are children who do not get “do overs” if things turn out poorly.
From a Catholic perspective - it is not God’s ordered plan for His Creation. Once again, it is a vanity to think that we as creatures may live as we want simply because we want to. Married men have to be faithful. Difficult for many but they plug away at it. Priests and religious women take vows of celibacy and obedience. Again not an easy thing to do in a world that says “Do what you want.” And single people are called to a chaste and celibate life whether they are straight or gay.
I do not think that my proposals and viewpoints are way out there or any part of any -wing that could be characterized. This is my answer - anyone is free to disagree with it - but I would hope that it be done charitably.
God loves us all and calls us each to a vocation. We need to listen.
T
The_Smiter
Guest
Ad hominems are ALWAYS preferably passed up. They have no place in civil discussion - no matter your point of view.
And just adding “Cheers” to the end of a post does not make it charitable.
A
Arclight
Guest
Apparently not here, but the ability to deliver a real zinger is an admired art form in any parliamentary body.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Oh, now, civil discourse has room for a little comic relief now and then. I don’t think that was malevolent at all - just a little harmless, and obvious, kidding around. Spire didn’t sound all THAT wounded! 
T
The_Smiter
Guest
Oh, now, civil discourse has room for a little comic relief now and then. I don’t think that was malevolent at all - just a little harmless, and obvious, kidding around. Spire didn’t sound all THAT wounded!
Well, ad hominems are ad hominems - jokingly proffered or not. There is a place for humor in debate, but personal attacks and zingers are not humor.
Wit is what is required, not necessarily humor.
I am not trying to sound like a curmudgeon, but I have seen too many forums degenerate into squabbling because of this misunderstood application of perceived levity.
Just my $0.13 worth - adjusted for inflation.
P
Publisher
Guest
Yes, I agree. I am for equality for individuals to determine for themselves what theyfeel is best for their lives as long as it doesn’t infringe on others rights at self determination. If my religious views prohibit a certain behavior…then I will not participate in that behavior…as long as I am not forced to engage in that behavior my religious beliefs prohibit…others may do so as moved by their own convictions.Manipulation by selfish individuals is, de facto, pretty much what the practice of law is all about, in every time and place, wouldn’t you say, Publisher? A bit cynical, but there you are…
Nevertheless, we can strive to uphold certain ideals. Some may remain under the purview of various peoples’ faiths, but the US Constitution explicitly states that such is a matter between those people and their churches, temples, groves and whatnot, and the state’s bailiwick must include attempting the Sisyphean, bogglingly enormous task of ascertaining and applying both the weal and will of all members of its citizenry regardless of religious, racial, sexual (etc.) affiliation or lack thereof, no matter how small the minority nor the size of the majority where secular law is concerned. A bit idealist, but again, there you are…
In the issue of “gay marriage” we keep hearing how “God doesn’t approve” or “God declares it disordered.”…that’s fine…but I do not wish to live under the rule of law dictated by what “You” decide “God intends”…for my beliefs in this same “God” is quite different.
Secular law is never going to be perfect…but it doesn’t have to be determined by “religious convictions” of some…especially when those religious convictions restrict whom someone may love or build a life with as long as we have two consenting adults involved in that life choice.
T
The_Smiter
Guest
Your position as presented, taken to the “Nth” degree, would ultimately at some point in time, assure that anything is permissible if enough people want it - or seemingly even if one person wanted it - and that the Sisyphean task of the state is merely to give anyone whatever they want, regardless of either preserving or protecting the ideals of the state.Manipulation by selfish individuals is, de facto, pretty much what the practice of law is all about, in every time and place, wouldn’t you say, Publisher? A bit cynical, but there you are…
Nevertheless, we can strive to uphold certain ideals. Some may remain under the purview of various peoples’ faiths, but the US Constitution explicitly states that such is a matter between those people and their churches, temples, groves and whatnot, and the state’s bailiwick must include attempting the Sisyphean, bogglingly enormous task of ascertaining and applying both the weal and will of all members of its citizenry regardless of religious, racial, sexual (etc.) affiliation or lack thereof, no matter how small the minority nor the size of the majority where secular law is concerned. A bit idealist, but again, there you are…
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Maybe I oughtn’t say ‘amen’, Publisher, - wouldn’t want people thinking I’d converted or something like that, now would we? - so how about a resounding ‘whoo, right on!’ 
But no, Smiter, that is not the logical extrapolated conclusion of what I have said, since that would be far too simple for such an heroic undertaking. It may be one possible result, but you are assuming too much and discounting so many possible eventualities, and presuming the permanence of any of them.
Since this is an internet forum, I try not to go into too much depth (although I am an awfully wordy one, I know!), but I do my best to convey my thoughts, and often enough, I fail.
- so how about a resounding ‘whoo, right on!’ But no, Smiter, that is not the logical extrapolated conclusion of what I have said, since that would be far too simple for such an heroic undertaking. It may be one possible result, but you are assuming too much and discounting so many possible eventualities, and presuming the permanence of any of them.
Since this is an internet forum, I try not to go into too much depth (although I am an awfully wordy one, I know!), but I do my best to convey my thoughts, and often enough, I fail.
- Status