F
Faithdancer
Guest
Why can’t I marry myself? Does marriage have to involve separate persons?
- Status
B
Bill_7154
Guest
I’m wondering if it’s actually best, as Catholics, to HATE the sin or a sin, rather than view the sin a bad but not ‘hate’ it. The reason I ask is because my heart used to be filled with hate, it was almost as if hate fueled my existance. I had a lot of problems and have since changed a lot.
But the use of the word hate, and my remembering what it was like to be consumed with hate, leads me to question if this is the best way to view sins as Catholics. I would like to keep hate out of my heart, my mind, my body, my soul, etc. It was a terrible time in my life and I could see no other way to live. Now that I am free of hate, I would like to remain this way.
I would like to remain this way even if, God fobid, someone did something horrific to my own son. I would like to not hate that person. Prior to my rediscovering my faith recently I supported vigilantism and was proud of this. This had a certain ammt of hate in me at all times. I have since changed that view and am against that now.
So I realize this might be a minor point, but I’m thinking that avoiding all hate, regardless of whatever the circumstances, is preferable to hating, even if it is a horrible sin.
I’m not sure exactly what the bible teaches on this, but I would tend to defer to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’, which I realise you have pointed out to do as in loving the sinner but hating the sin.
I’m just questioning if there is another way to look at and understand and view sin without doing so to the point of ‘hating’ it and if this would be preferable. Based on my own past life I’m thinking it would be better for me to not even hate the worst of sins, but to simply look at them as wrong, without having emotion such as hate attached to them at all.
And I also realize that this may simply have been a phrase you choose to use without necessarilly meaning actually ‘hating’ the sin. Then again, maybe you did mean exactly what you said.
In any event I’m looking for feedback and guidance as someone who has recently rediscovered my faith as a Catholic and want to be a good Catholic, but want to avoid any hate under all circumstances.
Thoughts?
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
I find this to be a bizzare streach of reasoning as to why to be against same sex marriages. If someone wants to support the t word they dont’ have to use marriage to do it.
And i don’t think it’s possilbe to keep people with finances to get into this country, particularly if they have the backing of an organization that has finances. We have massive water borders as well as the whole streach of Canada/US land in addition to Mexico. I have no doubt whatsoever that if someone can make it to Canada they can very, very easily get into the USA unchecked.
Additionally, only a tiny % of ships and cargo is inspected that comes through borders be they on land or via ocean. A tiny percentage. We simply can not keep out people who desire to do terrible things like those people who are into the t word.
And at a certain point, if we were to try so hard as to lock down the movements of citizens and encroach upon their righs more and more, we would see home grown t people willing to do violence in response to living an a nazi like state “das papers!”
Moreover, there can not be such a thing as a war on terrorism. That is a falsehood and anyone who believes there can be a ‘war on terror’ is mistaken. Terrorism is a military TACTIC, much like a ‘flanking maneuver’. One can not have a war on ‘flanking maneuvers’. It’s simply not possible and a cleaver play on words, but a perversion of logic.
So long as poeple actually believe it’s possible, we will have such a supposed war (that can not actually happen) for a million years. And those making money, getting power, off of such a scheme will continue to get money and power for generation after generation as it’s as if one is waging war on an illusion.
Linking gays and gay marriage to terrorism seems to me to be nothing more than fear mongering, just like the ‘war on terrorism’ is.
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
I agree with this. I understand that there are ‘benefits’ tied to civil unions or marriage as recognized by the state. But this is, IMO, yet another example of the gov’t sticking its nose where it does not belong.Amen, AMEN! And while secular culture may “change the definition of marriage,” the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not, and will never allow homosexuals to marry within the Church. If the homosexualists who call themselves “Catholic” don’t like it, they can shape up or ship out.
If you are Catholic and want to get married you go to the Catholic Church to do so. If your not Catholic and go to a Catholic Church to get married your either going to have to convert or will not get married. And if your homosexual, regardless of whether or not you call yourself or consider yourself Catholic, you will not be married in the Catholic Church.
I think that it is none of governments business to involve themselves in marriage. I realize that taxes are involved ,etc but think this is wrong as I am against government in general. As such, if we lived in such a world without government, I see not problem with 2 same sex people going to a place they consider a religion, or simply calling themselves married. The Catholic Church isn’t going to do it and isn’t going to recognize it. I realize my world with no government is not realistic. But there are many views of many Catholics that are not realistic with relation to how people behave in today’s day and age. So simply because it’s not realistic isn’t a reason to not believe in it as a good thing, or something to strive for.
God Bless,
Bill
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Not really, many serial killers kill to feel powerful due to having been almost systematically humiliated as a child.
Y’know some heterosexuals engage in anal sex too right? Y’know some homosexuals don’t engage in anal sex right?
Murdering people isn’t an inborn tendency, most cases of serial killers can be explained due to repeated humiliation as a child (who then kill people for revenge) or those suffering from antisocial personality disorder (the vast majority suffering from antisocial personality disorder do not kill people).
T
thewanderer
Guest
Sorry I was gon for the weekend so I didn’t have a chance to respond until now. 
You say that it it assumed that no one will live as much as one with you as your permanent lover, but why do you assume such a thing? There are many other relationships between people where the people involved are unbelievably commited to each other. In fact, there are plenty of examples where siblings were more commited to each other than lovers. Would you really deny these legal benefits which you claim are for those who live as one and are commited to each other to those who do not have a romantic relationship with each other simply because you have made this assumption that they will not really be commited to each other? Doesn’t that sound just a little bit like all the claims you hear people making about homosexuals not being able to truly love each other, that its all just selfish lust? I’m assuming you find those assumptions to be out of line, so why would you accept the assumption that people who are not romantically involved cannot be committed to each other or truly share their lives?
Like I said earlier, I don’t think legal marriage should be oriented towards people who wish to share their lives in a commited relationship, but if you believe that this is the purpose of marriage than it seems more than a little contradictory to deny the rights of legal marriage to two individuals who wish to share their lives and commit their lives to each other simply because they are not involved in a romantic relationship with each other. Either campaign for all restrictions on who can marry to be removed or campaign for the restrictions which will work towards the best scenario for the production and growth of future citizens, any other position seems contradictory to me.
ETA: I am still interested in hearing yours, and others, thoughts on my previous posts about the Josh Weed scenario, so if you have anything you wish to add to it feel free.
ETA: I would also like to add that I do think there is a place for certain legal structures in place for those individuals who wish to share their lives together, whether involved in a romantic relationship or not. I just also think that there is a place for a further legal structure for the creation of the best possible scenario for the production and raising of future citizens. Marriage is thought of as somewhere in between these two, but it is the closest structure we have to the latter and so I think it makes sense to try and get marriage to be recognized as being for the sake of the latter while also ensuring there are legal structures in place for the former. The problem is that so many people look at legal marriage as a validation of their romantic relationship that they lose sight of what the reason is behind such a legal structure, whichever way you take it it has nothing to do with a romantic relationship as such, and so should either be opened up to any who wish to share their lives, even if not romantically involved or else it should be restricted to those who are fertile and mature enough to enter into a stable, lifelong (or at least 20 yr long) relationship.
Basically, what I am pointing out is that two siblings/friends/whatever can be extremely close and share their lives together even if they are not having a romantic/sexual relationship. If the point of legal marriage is to allow people who are making their lives into one life if you will to easily make certain legal contracts then why in the world should two people who are not romantically involved but who want to share their lives with one another be denied these same legal benefits?
You say that it it assumed that no one will live as much as one with you as your permanent lover, but why do you assume such a thing? There are many other relationships between people where the people involved are unbelievably commited to each other. In fact, there are plenty of examples where siblings were more commited to each other than lovers. Would you really deny these legal benefits which you claim are for those who live as one and are commited to each other to those who do not have a romantic relationship with each other simply because you have made this assumption that they will not really be commited to each other? Doesn’t that sound just a little bit like all the claims you hear people making about homosexuals not being able to truly love each other, that its all just selfish lust? I’m assuming you find those assumptions to be out of line, so why would you accept the assumption that people who are not romantically involved cannot be committed to each other or truly share their lives?
Like I said earlier, I don’t think legal marriage should be oriented towards people who wish to share their lives in a commited relationship, but if you believe that this is the purpose of marriage than it seems more than a little contradictory to deny the rights of legal marriage to two individuals who wish to share their lives and commit their lives to each other simply because they are not involved in a romantic relationship with each other. Either campaign for all restrictions on who can marry to be removed or campaign for the restrictions which will work towards the best scenario for the production and growth of future citizens, any other position seems contradictory to me.
ETA: I am still interested in hearing yours, and others, thoughts on my previous posts about the Josh Weed scenario, so if you have anything you wish to add to it feel free.
ETA: I would also like to add that I do think there is a place for certain legal structures in place for those individuals who wish to share their lives together, whether involved in a romantic relationship or not. I just also think that there is a place for a further legal structure for the creation of the best possible scenario for the production and raising of future citizens. Marriage is thought of as somewhere in between these two, but it is the closest structure we have to the latter and so I think it makes sense to try and get marriage to be recognized as being for the sake of the latter while also ensuring there are legal structures in place for the former. The problem is that so many people look at legal marriage as a validation of their romantic relationship that they lose sight of what the reason is behind such a legal structure, whichever way you take it it has nothing to do with a romantic relationship as such, and so should either be opened up to any who wish to share their lives, even if not romantically involved or else it should be restricted to those who are fertile and mature enough to enter into a stable, lifelong (or at least 20 yr long) relationship.
F
fix
Guest
One place to start with may be the old Catholic Encyclopedia.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
fix,
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. It was quite educational. However, I think that in my particular case, because of my background with living for years filled with hatred, it would be safter for me to not even try to hate in the non sinful sense of the word. I feel as if I would get caught up somehow in not distinguishing the difference within myself and be in a place emotionally that I don’t want to be, and is not good for anyone who would be around me. I would be ill tempered and don’t believe that I have the capacity to separate those 2 different types of hate at this point in my life.
However, the explaination makes sense to me and it was very interesting to learn.
Thanks and God Bless,
Bill
C
CopticChristian
Guest
[/QUOTE]
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Bible,
The infertility argument is a dead horse. Stop beating this dead horse and beat yourself to the path as to what is true and real.
L
Lochias
Guest
And there are people who are gay or lesbian because of their upbringing, too.
It doesn’t matter if heterosexuals engage in anal sex in the context of this discussion. (Arguments against anal sex would be for another thread.) It doesn’t matter if some homosexuals don’t engage in anal sex, because they still can’t licitly reproduce.
There have been studies to show that the brain structure of at least some serial killers is different than that of a person who isn’t.
Even so, my argument still stands. Homosexuals do not need to have sex to feel happy. It’s something they want, not something they need. The pleasure from sex, the bonding, is designed from a biological standpoint to help parents to stay together to raise the children that are produced.
Homosexual sex is, anal or otherwise, is destructive to the community at large, because it hinders the propagation of the species. It can also be destructive to the participants, much more so that illicit heterosexual sex.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I actually agree with him on this.
we’re just talking about legal marriage, not natural or sacramental marriage. families are the building block of a successful society, so the government has a very good reason to want to recognize this building block and encourage the growth of healthy families. That’s the point of legal marriage, so if two people are unable to start a new family (and I mean they are actually sterile, not jut low fertility) what interest does the govt. have in giving them special privileges? So far this line has just been drawn by saying legal marriage must be between 1 man and 1 woman. If they were to change that to between 1 man and 1 woman neither of whom are sterile then all that would mean is that they drew the line more accurately for the purposes of legal marriage. Will this mean that sterile couples cannot get married? No, not at all, they will still be able to contract natural/sacramental marriages but would just not end up receiving the benefits intended hose who will start their own families. One of the main reasons I like this idea is that it might help people to realize that legal marriage does not equal marriage. Restricting legal marriage to certain groups of people does not mean that it is illegal for others to get married, it just means their marriage will not receive the benefits the state offers to fertile couples. Also, it might help people realize that legal marriage is not about your romantic relationship. The govt has no business trying to be the arbiter of someone’s romantic relationships. The battle over the definition of legal marriage should not be based on someone’s romantic relationship because it is not the job of the govt to interfere in peoples romantic relationships.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Bizarre stretch of reasoning? Before the hijack of planes on that infamous day in 2001, did security in air travel consider box cutters could do the same effect as a loaded gun or knife into the plane cabin with full of passengers? Was it imaginable before terrorists schooled in aviation classes given student visas used commercial American planes to blow up and bring down the Twin Towers, killing 3000+ innocents?
U.S. technology and laws are being used to by those who want to bring harm and death to Americans. Do you think terrorist organizations would stop short of abusing immigration policies, which extends via ‘marriage’ another, although not the only one, form of entry into the country?
I am not linking gays to terrorism. I am saying terrorists are quite capable of using legal SSM that may extend federal benefits (should DOMA be completely repealed) including immigration of individuals with diabolical motives who can convincingly pose as same sex married partners to get into our shores.
Further, the post was in response to Biblepoe’s statement that raised potential abuses to immigration policy which could conceivably be opened with unintended consequences related to legalized ‘marriage’ scenarios outside the unrelated one-man-one-woman configuration.
F
fix
Guest
How is a legal marriage not a real marriage simply because an opposite sex couple are infertile? What if a fertile couple never has children? That a couple has no children does not make their marriage illegitimate.I actually agree with him on this.
There is a vast difference between a married couple without kids and a same sex couple. To be honest, that this even has to be defended shows how far the gay agenda has infiltrated our culture.
T
thewanderer
Guest
lol, I’m not saying that people who are legally married but sterile are not really married. I’m just saying that the fact that the govt gave them legal marriage status is not what makes them be actually married. The legal marriage is a completely seperate thing from their actual marriage, and the two should not be conflated.
I agree that there is a huge difference between a married heterosexual couple without kids and a SScouple. I never said that there wasn’t a difference. My point was that that difference doesn’t really matter when it comes to legal marriage. It makes a huge difference as to whether or not they are actually married, but that is a completely seperate issue than legal marriage.
- Status