Prohibition should be a good example of why change is not always good. And that what change is wanted should be carefully considered. Not just rushed into just because.
(That’s sarcasm by the way.)Sarcasm noted and heartily agreed with! Pace yourself though. You don’t want to waste that wit on one meager post.Prohibition should be a good example of why change is not always good. And that what change is wanted should be carefully considered. Not just rushed into just because.
Besides, SCOTUS has done a fabulou job of changing the Constitution without anyone having to dirty their hands with actually changing the text.
I agree that respect for religious freedom is a 2 way street. And though Catholicism isn’t one of them, there are religions, including Christian, that support SSM.
So homosexuals in loving, committed, monogamous relationships can have the same right under civil law that heterosexuals have to marry the one person they love. It can’t happen without changing the definition.
So why should we change definition to accommodate disordered sexual behavior ?
That homosexuality is “disordered” is a religious and/or personal belief that is not universally held.
Is polygamy a new definition of marriage? Globally, acceptance of polygamy is common. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry. Source…
I know “disordered sexual behavior” is the Catholic position regarding loving, monogamous, committed homosexual couples. But since I don’t subscribe to such a premise, I’ve got better things to do than to repeat to you an answer as to why the definition should be changed.
No, it is objectively disordered and need no be based on religious and/or personal belief. There are philosophical, logical arguments about why homosexual acts are disordered. Most notably, natural law. For what purpose does sex exist? That is, what are sexual acts ordered toward. Homosexual acts are acts contrary to sex’s purpose, and hence are disordered.
Translation: I don’t like your response, and I can’t come up with my own, so I’ll shrug you off.
Frobert, thank you for this.
No. I just sometimes tire of the same old debates and responses over and over again on this forum. When I know Catholic minds aren’t going to be changed. And mine and the minds of others certainly aren’t going to be changed either. So I sometimes just accept there’s no winning these debates for either side and move on.
I do not doubt that you share your Church’s belief and reasoning, but do you have any sources other than Thomistic theory of natural law or religious doctrine or personal opinion to back up your statement that homosexual acts objectively disordered?
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage the issue, except for a few radicals on both sides, will fade into background noise.
So you really can’t tell us why the definition should be changd other than you disagree with the Church?
False dichotomy.
It appears that the cultural norm in our society is anything goes as long as it’s not based on religious beliefs
No one is forcing you to accept anything.
Not unless the State can demonstrate that there is a compelling justification to do so (since the restriction of fundamental rights and liberty interests is subject to strict scrutiny). They haven’t presented one that cannot also be - and here’s the important part - but isn’t applied to heterosexuals. Meaning they lose on equal protection because they cannot have different rules for different classes of people. Texas had the same problem in the Lawrence case.
Of course that is the million dollar question that no one is patiently awaiting an answer to from SCOTUS.
And I’m supposed to believe the pizza parlor/bakery fiascos are anomalies and that the “liberal left” is going to respect other people’s conscience?