The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Prodigal_Son]

I actually agree with what you suggest here much more than what you’ve expressed thus far. I agree that the concepts are what’s important. Whether or not the concept has a special name is insignificant. Again, I’ll cite my example of there being no word for “to believe on the basis of evidence”. It’s a very important concept that unfortunately lacks a name in our culture.

Hooray! We’re on the same page, then. I guess we disagree about education, but not about the conceptual apparatus of education. Yes, of course, it’s concepts that matter, and our ability to express them. You’re right that I missed your point about being able to express a concept “longhand”, if you like, instead of with a single word.

(This would appear to be Plato’s view too, by the way.)

But even if you can express them longhand, it’s much easier to express them with a single word – and that will lead to a clearer education. It’s much easier to teach the classical view of marriage by using the word “marriage” instead of by saying (in a post-SSM culture) “so there’s this thing that is like marriage except it can only involve a man and a woman, and it’s indissoluble, and it involves sexual complementarity, and its purpose is not only the love of the spouses but also the nurturance of children.”

Now I realize some of those properties of marriage have already been lost, and same-sex marriage advocates aren’t responsible for those losses. But it’s much easier to educate using one word that “packs a lot of punch” (e.g. a word like “integrity”) rather than the 20 words that would be needed to gesture at the concept. Moreover, I think that the concept of classical marriage is something of cross-cultural importance, like the concept of murder.

So of course we’re gonna disagree on the ethics here, but do you agree that, if my ethics were right, losing the word “marriage” as an moral-educational tool would be (and already has been) a genuine loss?

 

[marymary1975]

1. I have not claimed to be “forced” to follow the tenets of Catholicism. However, once a Catholic, always a Catholic, according to Catholicism. In other words, if a person falls away from Catholicism and, say, gets married in a civil ceremony and does not get married in a Church-sanctioned ritual, he or she is committing a sin, even though the bride or groom no longer subscribes to Catholicism. This is what I mean by not being able to wash it off, if you will.
2. I expect people to mind their own business. If I choose to share an experience, an action, a thought or idea with someone, I will, on my own timetable. Human beings do not have the authority to judge the actions of others. They may observe behaviors or attitudes, they may have visceral reactions to them, they may even mouth off about them, but they just don’t have the credentials to judge. It is not their job to judge. If someone is offended or fearful about another’s actions, he can call law enforcement or a therapist or a clergy person or a friend, he can even pray or cry or worry, but he cannot judge. It is not his place to do so. ** It has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with “getting away with something”.** I hope I’ve made my lexicon understandable to you.

Go ahead and cast that first stone, marymary1975. Be the first, the one, the only full human ever to have been conceived, and born, with nary a stain of sin.

As to 1, you stated that the catholic church has a sit on people’s bedroom and throughost of your post you are complaining about the church having rules so yes, you are implying that the church is giving you rules and you don’t want to follow them and you are angry because of that. As to a catholic always catholic, do you know that there is something called excommunication???

As to 2, humans beings not having authority to judge others that is a lie. Your use of the word judge refers as to discerning actions and human beings do have a duty to judge other’saction. We have a duty of fraternal correction and Jesus himself told us that we have to huge actions. Even outside of the religious sphere people do have the right to judge, we have an entire judicial system based on the right to judge others and society judges people everyday, from credit companies who will constantly judge you over your credit to hiring employers who will judge to see if you deserve the job or not.

From a religious standpoint what we cannot do is to pass final condemnation over someone else’s souls or determine the state of someone’s soul. But we can and society will tell you if there is something that is wrong or right. The attitude of well mind your own business and don’t tell me anything about it is indeed a desiree to get away with wrongful behavior without having to hear reminders that is wrong. It is a convenience attitude because I bet if there is abrapist around your neighborhood breaking into women’s houses then you would want people to mind the rapist business right? Or of there was a guy with a gun on his hand in a mall you would want people to mind the guy’s business right? When it is convenient for you you want people to mind their own business but when it is convenient for you then you want them to MIMD the business of others. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way. And even better if according to you what you are doing is supposedly right why the fear to hear that it may be wrong? If you would really know you are right you shouldn’t mind if others are stating something about your behavior? No guilt no fear so why is such a big issue others pointing wrongful actions?

 

[Oreoracle]

But even if you can express them longhand, it’s much easier to express them with a single word – and that will lead to a clearer education. It’s much easier to teach the classical view of marriage by using the word “marriage” instead of by saying (in a post-SSM culture) “so there’s this thing that is like marriage except it can only involve a man and a woman, and it’s indissoluble, and it involves sexual complementarity, and its purpose is not only the love of the spouses but also the nurturance of children.”

So of course we’re gonna disagree on the ethics here, but do you agree that, if my ethics were right, losing the word “marriage” as an moral-educational tool would be (and already has been) a genuine loss?

I don’t think it would be as difficult to communicate the idea as you describe. Presumably the Catholic definition of “marriage” will never budge, so the meaning of the word should be pretty clear based on context. Everyone who cares at all about science knows what a scientist means by “theory”, and that usage is quite different than common usage. Everyone knows that legal definitions of crimes do not reflect common usage very well. For example, most people would hesitate to call an 18-year-old a child molester for their relationship with a 17-year-old. This is because “child” to the law means “minor”.

So I think there are actually many cases in which we use the same word to describe different things. The meaning is usually clear from context, as in my examples above. So if someone is Catholic, they know what is meant by their fellow Catholics when marriage is being discussed. If a non-Catholic hears an evangelizing Catholic denouncing gay unions on the sidewalk, they will know which conception of “marriage” is being defended.

This is assuming that the Church remains vigilant and keeps proclaiming its stance loudly. If things settle down over the years, and its position becomes increasingly unknown, then of course the original sense of the word will become unknown. But then, if that happens, that really isn’t the fault of us secular people. It’s your position, and if you want it to have a legacy, you have to defend it. Allowing for the legal definition of marriage to expand for non-Catholics is no threat to you as long as you remain vocal.

 

[phil19034]

I understand this is your belief, and I would not attempt to influence you away from it, as it would be futile for me to try it.

If God invented sex, then how is it that lust, which is sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion, and the very thing that brings men and women together for sexual intimacy and possible procreation, --* how is it that lust is sinful?*

God creates sex. It is a gift to mankind. Check. God outlines rules which keep human beings from fully indulging in sex for fear of retribution from the same being who gave it to them as a gift. Check?? That points to a cynical God who toys with human beings like playthings. It’s a set-up.

Please feel free to explain.

Sex is like eating. Good food is enjoyable. But if you eat too much food or don’t eat properly you get fat or even sick. It can lead to glutinous behavior.

Giving into lust is allowing out animal instincts to take over. Giving into to lust is like like giving into the “dark side of the force” in Star Wars. It leads you down a dark path. Porn comes from lust. Then porn addiction. Then adultery, etc.

I know from first hand experience.

Lust is not the definition you give, “sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion, and the very thing that brings men and women together for sexual intimacy and possible procreation.” That is the definition of a LOVING sexual relationship, not a lustful one.

Lust is without love. That’s why it’s not a complement to say to someone “I lust after you.” It means you want his/her body, but not their mind or soul. Lust is objectifying a human being into a sexual play toy, it robs the person of their human dignity, even if they don’t realize it.

 

[marymary1975]

If your facts are correct, then clearly it will happen, and quite soon I would expect.

I agree that it will happen but I don’t think we will see it soon or at least not until gay marriage is judicially imposed on the US. Gay activist are very very smart and right now a suit like this would be a very dumb movement because you still have a lot of opposition against it and the gay activist motto to convince people is precisely that no ooooone is forcing churches to do this. A suit like this will affect negatively in abhige way the expansion of the gay marriage movement and because of that they won’t do it. They are too smart to make that mistake. So I don’t foresee it anytime soon. I think that would be their last play card and they are hiding it until they have it on the entire country.

 

[marymary1975]

"A series of documents adopted at United Nations conferences,
most notably the 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development (ICPD), have explicitly linked governments’ duties under
international treaties to their obligations to uphold reproductive rights.
As stated in Paragraph 7.3 of the ICPD Programme of Action:

“[R]eproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already
recognized in national laws, international human rights documents
and other consensus documents. These rights rest on the recognition
of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and
responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to
have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the
highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes
their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of
discrimination, coercion and violence, as expressed in human
rights documents.”

All this flowerly wording to say something that it can be say in one sentence:
Reproductive rights= abortion.

 

[marymary1975]

I understand this is your belief, and I would not attempt to influence you away from it, as it would be futile for me to try it.

If God invented sex, then how is it that lust, which is sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion, and the very thing that brings men and women together for sexual intimacy and possible procreation, --* how is it that lust is sinful?*

God creates sex. It is a gift to mankind. Check. God outlines rules which keep human beings from fully indulging in sex for fear of retribution from the same being who gave it to them as a gift. Check?? That points to a cynical God who toys with human beings like playthings. It’s a set-up.

Please feel free to explain.

You have a huge huge misunderstanding as to the teachings of the church in the areas of sexuality. That is not the topic of this thread so I am not going to give a church doctrine class but you certainly are talking and criticizing the church without having proper knowledge of the subject. So I would repeat someone else’s suggestion, you should probably read the bible, the cathecism, talk to an priest and read a few encyclicals before criticising. Oh and by the way, talking about judgment that was one of Jesus’ objections to the case of adulterer woman: passing final condemnation based on injustice and lack of good judgment. So probably before attacking the church you should learn what it actually teaches instead of criticizing bases on what you think they teach.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I understand this is your belief, and I would not attempt to influence you away from it, as it would be futile for me to try it.

If God invented sex, then how is it that lust, which is sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion, and the very thing that brings men and women together for sexual intimacy and possible procreation, --* how is it that lust is sinful?*

Lust doesn’t bring people together. Lust is *disordered *desire. One can desire a person without being lustful.

Here’s what lust does: makes it so that men are incapable of sexually performing. Look up the “No FAP” movement. It’s all about men who use porn and masturbate so much that real women don’t turn them on anymore. It’s very sad.

God creates sex. It is a gift to mankind. Check. God outlines rules which keep human beings from fully indulging in sex for fear of retribution from the same being who gave it to them as a gift. Check?? That points to a cynical God who toys with human beings like playthings. It’s a set-up.

But even you believe that human beings shouldn’t fully indulge in sex. At least I hope you do. Do you think things like bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and the like, are fine? Surely these things provide new and different experiences of sex, and thus they involve indulging in sex “more fully”. But they aren’t part of the gift of sex. They take something that is about interpersonal intimacy and distort it.

God gives us gifts that we should indulge in within certain reasonable bounds. It is good to eat sugar, but it is bad to eat too much sugar. It is good to feel the pleasure of combing your hair, but it is bad to scratch your scalp till it bleeds (even though this *feels *good).

It sounds to me like your objection isn’t really leveled at the people on this forum, but it’s directed straight at God. I would recommend that you take it to Him. Talk to Him, yell at Him, complain to Him – but, as Jacob did, don’t let go of Him until you feel His blessing. He is happy to bless you, even if you disagree with Him. He wants to wrestle with you, if you’re angry at Him, because you are precious to Him.

 

[KP3243]

I understand this is your belief, and I would not attempt to influence you away from it, as it would be futile for me to try it.

If God invented sex, then how is it that lust, which is sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion, and the very thing that brings men and women together for sexual intimacy and possible procreation, --* how is it that lust is sinful?*

God creates sex. It is a gift to mankind. Check. God outlines rules which keep human beings from fully indulging in sex for fear of retribution from the same being who gave it to them as a gift. Check?? That points to a cynical God who toys with human beings like playthings. It’s a set-up.

Please feel free to explain.

Lust, objectification and utilitarian use of the human person is a result of The Fall, man has been disordered ever since not just with lust but with vanity, envy, pride, theft, adultery, etc. however that doesn’t mean we do not have free well to reject these and God know better than anyone how disordered man is and when you try to reject a sin that you are especially prone to you can’t do it by yourself that is why He is willing to help you rid yourself of it. He knows it is impossible to do it yourself all He needs is a contrite heart that knows it is wrong who wants helps He will get you there. Also married love is pleasing to God and you should enjoy your spouse.

 

[JimG]

This woman in her blog addresses several questions about gay marriage:

“It’s like asking why I am against square circles. Marriage has an essence, a meaning. It has always been a certain kind of union of persons, specifically a conjugal union rooted in biology itself; it is complementary and heterosexual by its very nature.”

littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2014/07/my-answers-to-questions-about-gay.html

 

[Prodigirl]

So, on the basis of these two sets of data, I guess the failure rate is somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 55! The 1 in 55 figure in Wikipedia article is against a method labelled as “symptoms based fertility awareness” (involving monitoring of 1 or more of basal temperature, cervical mucus, vaginal sensation).

Guttmacher is online - you’re free to peruse the information.

 

[Rau]

Lust, objectification and utilitarian use of the human person is a result of The Fall, man has been disordered ever since not just with lust but with vanity, envy, pride, theft, adultery, etc. however that doesn’t mean we do not have free well to reject these and God know better than anyone how disordered man is and when you try to reject a sin that you are especially prone to you can’t do it by yourself that is why He is willing to help you rid yourself of it. He knows it is impossible to do it yourself all He needs is a contrite heart that knows it is wrong who wants helps He will get you there. Also married love is pleasing to God and you should enjoy your spouse.

I think it is more pertinent to note that what she describes as Lust is not, in fact, Lust. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12232290&postcount=140

 

[Prodigirl]

So the explicit rights captured are:
every woman is free to decide whether and when to have children

access to the best reproductive healthcare.
[The remainder of the statement is an assertion that these rights are necessary and central for the dignity of women]

In a country such as the USA (I’m not from there), do women have all these rights? Certainly I know the government does not limit the right to get pregnant/have babies (as in China), nor the right to use contraception, not have sex, etc. The government even allows pregnancies to be ended by medical intervention. What are the major concerns in the USA then?

Every woman must be free to make her reproductive choices based on her own beliefs, her own conscience, her own medical history, her own economic status, etc. These options are being narrowed daily by fundamentalist Christian politicians who are enacting laws based on Christian morality (or their interpretation of it), with sweeping consequences for women who are either not Christian or who subscribe to no organized religion. It is unconstitutional, as it breaches the Establishment Clause, which appears in the very first Amendment of the United States. The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. And yet our country is slithering with career politicians who pander to the Christian majority and get laws passed by cheating, by lying, by bullying. If you don’t believe that, check out Wendy Davis’ filibuster on You Tube. The ambulatory care outrage is particularly egregious since the Texas State’s Governor’s sister owns a number of such care centers and stood/stands to profit from the laws enacted. It’s so crooked even the blind can see it.

Christianity is probably wonderful for Christians. But it has to stop there. The power of the Christian is negated when s/he attempts to convert or evangelize or change the lives of others who do not share their beliefs. It is the same with every single religion. We are supposed to be free to worship as we wish, not be coerced by someone else’s religion or moral code or fear.

Women’s rights, in particular our reproductive rights, are being stripped away left and right because other, uninvolved people are offended by choices we are making. Take a look at reproductive health care in the Rio Grande Valley of Southern Texas. How many clinics have been shuttered there because people just don’t like what they’re doing? This denies a very large number of poor, already underserved women to either go without health care or get a sitter for their children, find the money, get a car, and drive to San Antonio, the next nearest clinic meeting the new surgical-center standards, which is four hours north. That’s eight hours in the car for medical care, to say nothing of perhaps having to stay overnight in a cheap motel - more money, more time away from their families. In other words, NO, great numbers of women in the U.S. do NOT enjoy optimum, adequate, or even ANY health care. At this time we are guaranteed these rights by the Constitution, but the freedom is not just eroding, it is being stolen from U.S. women under the sanctimonious flag of “Righteousness”. I am sick to death of being dictated to by this very large group of citizens as if I have no rights myself and as if I don’t know what is best for me. People need to back off with the UNAMERICAN stance on reproductive rights.

 

[Prodigirl]

I think it is more pertinent to note that what she describes as Lust is not, in fact, Lust. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12232290&postcount=140

Here we go with the Cooking Of The Books again!

Lust is lust is lust is lust is lust.

If you’re trying to identify something else, find another word, because lust is lust is lust. And your apologist thang is just getting tiresome.

 

[Rau]

Here we go with the Cooking Of The Books again!

Lust is lust is lust is lust is lust.

If you’re trying to identify something else, find another word, because lust is lust is lust. And your apologist thang is just getting tiresome.

Again you play word-games, not stopping to thing about the substance of what is in discussion.

What you spoke of in your earlier post (the one that concluded that God is cynical) was (& these are your words) "sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion". I think we agree that these can be good and proper things in the right context.

What the Church considers sinful is not the above, but rather: "…disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes"

Hey - guess what, they’re not the same thing!! It’s just that you called the former Lust, and the Church called the latter Lust (and defined it as such in the Catechism).

Don’t let a little thing like the facts get in the way of misrepresenting the Church

 

[Rau]

…Take a look at reproductive health care in the Rio Grande Valley of Southern Texas. How many clinics have been shuttered there because people just don’t like what they’re doing? This denies a very large number of poor, already underserved women to either go without health care or get a sitter for their children, find the money, get a car, and drive to San Antonio, the next nearest clinic meeting the new surgical-center standards, which is four hours north. That’s eight hours in the car for medical care, to say nothing of perhaps having to stay overnight in a cheap motel - more money, more time away from their families. In other words, NO, great numbers of women in the U.S. do NOT enjoy optimum, adequate, or even ANY health care. At this time we are guaranteed these rights by the Constitution, but the freedom is not just eroding, it is being stolen from U.S. women under the sanctimonious flag of “Righteousness”. I am sick to death of being dictated to by this very large group of citizens as if I have no rights myself and as if I don’t know what is best for me. People need to back off with the UNAMERICAN stance on reproductive rights.

I’m sorry to hear that (publicly provided?) health care in parts of the US is in such short supply. I don’ know Texas geography… - is this related to lack of population in the area, lack of taxes, or are you talking about services the community does not want to pay for? An eight hour drive to visit an OB/GYN for a pregnant woman is pretty bad, and I assume the situation could lead to deaths in some emergency situations (eg. premature delivery, caesarean required, etc).

The topic probably warrants its own thread (as not connected to the topic of this thread).

 

[Prodigirl]

I’m sorry to hear that (publicly provided?) health care in parts of the US is in such short supply. I don’ know Texas geography… - is this related to lack of population in the area, lack of taxes, or are you talking about services the community does not want to pay for? An eight hour drive to visit an OB/GYN for a pregnant woman is pretty bad, and I assume the situation could lead to deaths in some emergency situations (eg. premature delivery, caesarean required, etc).

The topic probably warrants its own thread (as not connected to the topic of this thread).

I will offer this link to you in case you might be interested in this topic. It may warrant its own thread but I can’t see a way to start one (new here).

kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/may/21/texas-border-counties-medicaid.aspx

 

[Joe_5859]

This woman in her blog addresses several questions about gay marriage:

“It’s like asking why I am against square circles. Marriage has an essence, a meaning. It has always been a certain kind of union of persons, specifically a conjugal union rooted in biology itself; it is complementary and heterosexual by its very nature.”

littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2014/07/my-answers-to-questions-about-gay.html

Thanks for sharing, Jim! That is another good article on the subject.