C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
O so you just made up your religion, like you make up your social policies. That’s very creative of you, but doesn’t have much authority behind it!
- Status
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Taking the last part of your quote and bolding mine.
You think? If this study by gay researchers Blakes Spears and Lanz Lowen is any indication, gay couples prefer non-monogamous relationships. The study was featured in NYT article Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret.
In fact, Dan Savage, the gay sex advice columnist based in Seattle, who is ‘married’ to his male partner, also known for It Gets Better project producing videos aimed at troubled gay youth said this:
The discourse on monogamy and about sexuality is generally dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.
So, tell us, why would committed gay couples even want to marry?
Now heterosexuals can be promiscuous as well. This is not denied. Promiscuity predictably leads to problems in straight couples, often leading to divorces with married folks. You don’t hear of pre-nup arrangements that include rules on non-monogamy and how extramarital affairs are to be conducted.
Apologists for homosexuality and gay ‘marriage’ often charge that Catholics adhering to teaching on the matter are lacking in charity and understanding of the trials of homosexuals. That is far from true. In fact, the issue is not an impersonal one to many members in this forum including me. The nature of gay relationships has been much covered and a myriad of studies have been looked at and cited in the course of the heavy volume of posts and threads in this forum. If you navigate and perform the site search function, you would know that every new forum member who gravitate to the topic bring up the same challenges or variations thereof to Church teaching and natural law arguments against gay ‘marriage.’
To go straight to the point, you will find that Catholics here will touch on the wrongfulness of homosexual acts, but will not say that homosexuals are evil and damned to hell. This site is Catholic, and it is not connected to the Westboro Church.
The objection to gay ‘marriage’ boils down to these: It legitimises open indoctrination of children in schools and parental modelling in homes via adoption or surrogacy methods that homosexual relations are no different than heterosexual relations. As law is instructive, legalized gay ‘marriage’ inevitably leads to normalisation of what is not normal. It would further bolster challenges to the first amendment rights of those across different faiths that are against homosexuality. Already, with same sex ‘marriages’ in certain states, and same sex civil unions and domestic partnerships in others, such speech has started to be regarded as hate speech. All these are not in the direction of the societal common good.
,
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
good post:thumbsup:
T
TEPO
Guest
Sounds like your goal is to eliminate bigotry in all forms… Only problem is you’ll have to figure out how to eliminate people from believing that homosexual behavior is a sinful disorder. That can’t happen without bigotry towards the catholic church…
Can there be such thing as bigotry against the people of the Church…? Are we replacing one form of bigotry for another…?
We need to find out what is greater for the common good. Untrammelled tolerance or untrammelled prudence. The latter is more logical
L
LoboLobo
Guest
Not being part of a gay couple who wants to marry, I can’t answer your question, other than to share my supposition that it is for the same reasons that any other couple would want to marry. Things like mutual support and love, raising a family, sharing expenses, recognition of their love, commitment to each other, the financial advantages of employment benefits, a public statement of how they feel about each other… the reasons are probably as numerous as there are people who want to marry.
We live during a time of increasing promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation. This is the result of many different social factors and laws, including the women’s rights movement, the gay rights movement, birth control methods, effective treatment of STD’s, and I also think in large measure the explosion sexual media, including movies, television, speech, print, and particularly of the Internet as a source or sexual stimulation and exposure of ideas and behavior which were previously unknown. For example, the average high school or college person today is aware of sexual fetish activity and other sexual activity which previous generations may not ever have heard of. This normalizes such behavior by making it familiar. Homosexual behavior may fall into this class, too.
I have not made that claim, so I am not sure while you bring it up in response to my post. I will make the claim that the prohibitions against homosexual behavior are based on religious beliefs. I will also claim that there is hatred (you cite a cogent example), which is based on this prohibition. I’m not familiar enough with the Catholic position, except that it opposes homosexual acts based on a couple of scriptural sources, and based on the teachings of some historic theologians who proposed a system of “Natural Law” which was an elaboration of the teachings of some earlier philosophers, and adapted to Christianity.
Yes, that is the crux of the social argument. The social sciences and psychological studies don’t seem to be supporting some of those conclusions, and it is not clear at all that first amendment rights would be abridged. We have courts to address that problem, if it occurs. It is understandable why some people with strongly held beliefs in this area of discourse would feel challenged, and discouraged with the way that things are going.
On the other hand, I can see how the opposing side would point out that it is precisely these arguments which stand in their favor to secure their civil rights, and the claim would be that granting them their rights would not interfere with anyone else’s religious freedom, or freedom of expression.
I don’t see how the two sides can be reconciled. It seems to me, though, that things are changing at an increasing pace. That is the nature of change. So the question here, might be better put as how Catholics will adapt to the change which appears to be coming, not whether it is opposed. Opposing it will probably not do much but change the course of the inevitable. By that, I mean I can imagine cases where opposition to gay marriage may in fact increase the likelihood of its legalization, just as it might slow down the process. These things are impossible to predict with any certainty.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
It is a christian who has gotten past the silliness of demoninationalism. They believe in things like private interpretation of scripture and individual revelation of the will of God. You don’t need a church or another person to tell you what God’s will is, He will just whisper it in your ear when your confused.
L
LoboLobo
Guest
Yes, there can be bigotry and intolerance, or worse, for members of a religious group. The obvious example is antisemitism which has ranged from public endorsement by the Catholic Church, all the way to the atrocities of the 1930’s and 1940’s. I would venture to say that antisemitism was considered a normal way to think in the US during much of our history.
This argument, that allowing same sex marriage discriminates against religious people on our society, interests me. I am not quite sure I buy it. Is the claim being made that the mere presence of same sex marriages in our society interferes with the ability of Catholics to practice their religion? Is it true that in California where there are about two thousand legal same sex marriages, or in Massachusetts, or any of the other states and countries where gay marriage is legal, that religious people have been prevented from practicing their religious beliefs? If so, then why has the Church not defended itself in the courts? Certainly, it has the interest and the resources to do so.
Do you have any clear examples of religious rights being denied as a consequence of a same sex marriage in Spain or in Massachusetts, for example?
S
St_Francis
Guest
The “right” in question is not the right to receive finacial government benefits, the “right” is not to get the government to acknowledge one’s sexual relationship, the right to marry is the right to make certain exclusive agreements with someone *for the purpose of procreation and raising of children. *
The problem is with the definition of marriage. The traditional laws related to marriage defined marriage as a union between two people *for the purpose of having and raising the future of the society. *It didn’t matter if the people loved each other, were sexually attracted to each other, or had a sexual relationship. What mattered was that they were entering into an exclusive relationship which would allow for the creating and raising of children.
*For this reason, *society conferred certain benefits upon married couples and families.
Now it seems that other people want those benefits, without doing their part of producing the future of the society --and I *am *including people who marry without intending to have children.
I have already addressed this. In fact, *current *research shows that there are differences; it is the flawed, biased, politically-correct research from before which is wrong.
Unfortunately for me, that is not what I was saying. I was responding to the previous poster’s remark that an inherently boundariless situation would have boundaries imposed by a recognition by whatever approriate authority the person believed would impose it.
I do however want to address what you wrote, because I find it interesting, but I have to run off now… so I shall return
L
LoboLobo
Guest
I don’t think anyone would argue with what you say, but I would point out that the definition of marriage is now entirely different legally, than it was for my own grand parents. In two generations, the legal definition of marriage has, in fact, changed. This would challenge the idea that the definition of marriage cannot change, and perhaps this would challenge the idea that the definition of marriage should not change, if one believes that at least some of the change which has occurred is for the best.
Should a married woman be allowed to own property equally with her husband? Should a woman be required to follow her husband anywhere he chooses to go, or be liable in divorce proceedings? Should a husband find himself liable if he is not the “breadwinner”, in these days of dual careers?
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with you that changing the definition of marriage in terms of gender is a very large change to that definition. However, I don’t buy the argument that there is a static legal definition of marriage which has endured for all time, or that some of the changes to the legal definition of marriage have not been for the better. So, I don’t think that the “you can’t change the definition of marriage” argument holds as much weight as many might think. That definition has been quite fluid for the past recent decades.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Correct, that’s why I put “allowed” in quotes. The Constitution does not provide for a “right to privacy” and yet, the Courts have found one…
M
myriad1
Guest
during 40 years of hardship in the desert, the Israelites learned that if they did it God’s way, they would not only survive, they would flourish.
if our soft western culture experiences a long “desert” phase, you can bet that idealistic lifestyles like gay marriage and single parent will be winnowed out as too inferior to survive in the long run.
our modern society experiments like all of those before us. some things are kept. some things work for a while and get rejected eventually.
if our soft western culture experiences a long “desert” phase, you can bet that idealistic lifestyles like gay marriage and single parent will be winnowed out as too inferior to survive in the long run.
our modern society experiments like all of those before us. some things are kept. some things work for a while and get rejected eventually.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The definition used traditionally was simply what marriage *was; *neither the Founding Fathers nor the subsequent lawmakers bothered to define it.
What you are talking about are the laws *surrounding *marriage. In Virginia, for example, a husband would inherit his wife’s property immediately, the wife would experience a delay, things like that. Those changes merely affected *aspects *of marriage–marriage itself remained the same.
No one is saying that the definition has endured for all time in all places or that changes to various aspects of marriage have not been beneficial. However, marriage in this country (the US) has been *treated as *an institution for the begetting and rasing of children. As such, certain benefits have been conferred… … …
And are we now to confer these benefits on couples who are *inherently *incapable of procreation? I see no point in that whatsoever.
T
TEPO
Guest
Nice straw man…!
We were talking about bigotry being shifted towards the church by those who claim that bigotry must end… Now you charge me with claiming that “Same sex marriage discriminates against religious people”…
I never said such a thing, it was you who said it.Can you just admit that the popular trend these days is to remove bigotry from homosexuality, and apply it to religion…?
S
St_Francis
Guest
Well, I see what you are saying about the difference, but I would suggest that they are merely two sides of the same coin. For example, I have the right to keep my possessions, and the law enforces that right by forbidding others to steal my possessions, no? And, in fact, one can see that much of morality is related to interpersonal relationships.
You say that my argument lacks “relevance and modernity,” I say so what? I could just as easly say that your argument lacks traditional support or applicability to medieval society. The question is not what might be thought about the argument, *but whether the argument is true. *
I think some historical study is important in this issue. Why do we have state involvement in marriage? Why is marriage important to society? Otherwise, we lack a foundation from which to say anything at all about marriage in our particular time and place.
Correct, however, much of what I have been saying is related not to any particular religion’s beliefs, but the interests of the State.
All right then, why should US taxpayers pay to subsidize homosexual couples?
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Really? So all these “Christians” holding opposing views are doing God’s will? I thought that part of God’s will was that we all be one. It seems unlikely he would lead us all to different truths. It seems unlikely that he would have left us no way to know the truth. It seems we should all be concerned with the truth (God’s will) and not with what we think is right or wrong–all too often we confuse God’s will with our will.
Increasingly for people it is no longer about conforming their will to God’s but rather of conforming God’s will to their own. They conveniently forget that while Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultry–he told her to go and sin no more–they just ignore that part–after all it seems that for many we live in the “post sin age”. As Cole Porter wrote:
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.
The world has gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today,
And day’s night today,
…Anything goes.
B
Brandon_Rimmer_1
Guest
I don’t put much stock in human authority. And human authority is all the authority I believe the Catholic Church has.
B
Brandon_Rimmer_1
Guest
Because it harms no one and it’s what gays want. Also, various religions consider gay marriage to be valid marriage. It seems like a violation of religious freedom for the State not to allow for a religious viewpoint to be recognized, if that viewpoint causes no harm and is not clearly demonstrably wrong.
Why is this the point?
Because it harms no one and it’s what gays want.
How do you know this? Why does this make gay parents not as good as other parents who are allowed to adopt?
They should learn to live with disappointment. The government shouldn’t interfere with religious freedom.
If one religion wants to say that gays can be married, the government should recognize the marriage.
If another religion wants to say that gays can’t be married, the government should recognize the freedom to that belief.
On what type of thinking, specifically?
S
St_Francis
Guest
The policy I try to adhere to is to explain my point of view, or the Church’s point of view, to the best of my ability. Apparently I have very little ability in this area, since you are asking the same questions despite the fact that I have answered them. I am sorry that you do not understand what I have written, but I can do no better. Perhaps someone else will be able to do better than I.
B
Brandon_Rimmer_1
Guest
I do have the sense that I am unable to understand both you and other responders on this thread. I don’t know why this is…
In any case, thank you for the attempt.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
A strawman as one poster pointed out.
However, it may interest you to view displays of bigotry and intolerance by homosexual activists. MSNBC and CNN did not deem the events newsworthy, and you can ask yourself why. The video actually shows the kind of bigotry and intolerance against Catholics during peaceful TFP rallies with signs of messages for traditional marriage, in different universities (Berkeley and Brown University) and during periods of SS’M’ legislation in certain states (Maryland, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, New York): Attacked by Tolerance
Has anyone to your knowledge in the name of the Catholic faith or teaching done anything that the homosexual activists have done in the video? As suggested upthread, is one (charge of) bigotry being replaced by another (actual, not merely perceived intolerance and bigotry)?
Let me address this part of your quote, if religious people are prevented from practicing their religious belief, why does the Church not defend itself in court? You must have missed the news that EWTN, Ave Maria University, and three other Catholic groups (plus seven states!) filed suits against the federal government over the HHS mandate by Obama.
If things get to extreme and actionable levels with this gay ‘marriage’ movement, I think you may see Catholic organizations and Catholics take legal steps. However, the pro-gay ‘marriage’ crowd needs to understand that Catholic groups and members look up to Church leaders for guidance, and that the Church is in the business of saving souls, teaching forgiveness and redemption, proclaiming the gospel. She is trusting that people of good will will neither circumvent nor render toothless the first amendment in protecting the exercise of religious liberty. We shall see. It is a cultural warfare. For Catholics, it is also a spiritual battle against principalities and powers.
You indicate in your profile that you were raised Catholic but are currently skeptic. What you read in this forum should not be new to you. CC practices are nowhere identical to other groups that claim a Christian label. I will give the example of the extreme Westboro group again, not to infer that you are making a claim that Catholics or the Church preach hatred as said group does. You might even agree that the Catholic Church is slow to mete out punishments to her own dissenting and sinning clergy as well as the laity. Quick to forgive, slow to punish, you might say. Like the father of the prodigal son, the parable I will assume you would remember in your exposure to the Catholic faith. If not, just google ‘parable of the prodigal son.’
,
- Status