The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[fpt]

We all heard this almost misguided and very secular broad logic from the gay community. But I feel that in some way they are only “Scratching the surface” on the topic of marriage and it’s sacred nature. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” without being judgmental or mean but at the same time showing it’s weakness on describing the courtship of marriage?

In fact, we have the right to judge the acts and not the persons, the subtility is here. But today the distinction is not recognised because of the new systems of thinking coming from the ideologies.

Like catholic and like human being, we are capable to judge the acts, the doctrines, the behaviors, the actions. It is a new thinking that says that it is not okay to give a judgment concerning the acts. This doxa (doctrine) is wrong.

Natural philosophy:

By nature, the conjugal love – a very special love is only between a man and a woman --, wanted by God is the melting pot between Eros, Agape and Philia, and thus means alterity and complementary between the duality of humanity (male " body and soul " and female " body and soul ").

The union of bodies and of the souls is only between two human beings with different genders. If you look at the body of man and the body of woman the complementarity is natural, it is easy to understand the nature wanted by God; It is almost the same about the soul.

The Love, between two persons of same genders, can not be conjugal. It is like that; it is not negociable; otherwise it is against the natural law (a ideology, I mean no respect of the realistic and objective nature) who is the fundamental law. Sorry if I am direct, but " conjugal love ", between two men or two women, is by definition impossible, it can not be a conjugal love.

This persons think to be in conjugal love, but in reality they are in an other situation (a fake love that is so wrong). The friendship, between them, is okay and is not against the natural law.

 

[Crescentinus]

Here’s some food for thought.
If love is love no matter where you find it, then what is love? You cannot define something by going for a solipsism.

 

[fpt]

Here’s some food for thought.
If love is love no matter where you find it, then what is love? You cannot define something by going for a solipsism.

Are you catholic?

 

[Crescentinus]

Are you catholic?

Yes, and my food for thought was directed at the homosexualists.

 

[fpt]

Here’s some food for thought.
If love is love no matter where you find it, then what is love? You cannot define something by going for a solipsism.

The paradigmatic system of the catholic church is from the Holy bible (Old testament, New testament), the catholic doctrine (catholic theology and catholic philosophy that are objective, realistic in the interpretation), the Holy Tradition.

If you use the medical sciences, the psychological sciences, the biomedical sciences, the philosophical sciences, the theological sciences, the juridical sciences, the sociological sciences, the antropological sciences, the historical sciences… etc without ideology (I mean in the respect of the realistic/ objective observation), about the " Conjugal love " there is a complementarity of sciences and they are going in the same conclusion. The respect of the nature (natural law).

Conjugal love is only for a man and an woman (between male and female).

 

[fpt]

Yes, and my food for thought was directed at the homosexualists.

Okay,

I didn’t understand the direction of your thought.

Sorry, if I could be rude.

 

[Debora123]

We all heard this almost misguided and very secular broad logic from the gay community. But I feel that in some way they are only “Scratching the surface” on the topic of marriage and it’s sacred nature. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” without being judgmental or mean but at the same time showing it’s weakness on describing the courtship of marriage?

You could say that “Marriage” was not invented by gay people.

Marriage is something that has existed for thousands and thousands of years, and is specifically in reference to a life long union between male and female. That is the definition of marriage.

If they want to get together and have a life long commitment too, they most certainly have the free will to do so, but they need to come up with another word to define their arrangement. Because the word “marriage” is taken and already has a definition.

 

[ASimon]

You could say that “Marriage” was not invented by gay people.

Marriage is something that has existed for thousands and thousands of years, and is specifically in reference to a life long union between male and female. That is the definition of marriage.

If they want to get together and have a life long commitment too, they most certainly have the free will to do so, but they need to come up with another word to define their arrangement. Because the word “marriage” is taken and already has a definition.

Even if we take this to be true, on what authority do you assert that this definition can never be changed?

 

[Debora123]

Even if we take this to be true, on what authority do you assert that this definition can never be changed?

What’s the point of that?

I don’t see the point in changing the definition of something that has been defined for thousands and thousands of years.

A duck is a duck. You can call it a horse if you want, but truth is, it’s still a duck.

 

[ASimon]

What’s the point of that?

I don’t see the point in changing the definition of something that has been defined for thousands and thousands of years.

A duck is a duck. You can call it a horse if you want, but truth is, it’s still a duck.

The point is that it seems insufficient to defer to long-standing tradition as the primary basis for never changing a word’s definition. Plenty of bad ideas existed in practice for thousands of years before people got around to admitting that these were pretty bad ideas. And the opposition argument then was much the same as it is now. “This idea has been around for thousands of years! You can’t just change it!”

You may not see the point in changing the definition. But you don’t actually need to see the point. Nor, I should add, would you be required to accept the new definition, were it to be codified. If half the American population did decide to start calling ducks “horses,” you could live out the rest of your life asserting the contrary, using whatever arguments you like in defense of your position.

And so it is with marriage. If the definition were changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, you could assert with every breath that these were not “marriages.” Nobody will stop you. Certainly not the secular government which affirms your right to free speech. Nor will said government reach in and force your religious institutions to formally recognize such partnerships as legitimate (This, by the way, is what religious freedom actually looks like).

The only remaining question would be, "What do you care if people call ducks, ‘horses?’

 

[livingwordunity]

The only remaining question would be, "What do you care if people call ducks, ‘horses?’

Why does it bother you that a duck is still called a duck?

 

[buffalo]

Even if we take this to be true, on what authority do you assert that this definition can never be changed?

Because marriage defines a function. Outside the intended function it ceases to have meaning.

 

[Rob_has_lapsed]

Yes, it does. As you note, we are designed for heterosexual relations. Human children need care for a long time. They need a mom and a dad; that implies a need for permanence and fidelity. It’s true that many children have not experienced that in their lives in the last few generations. That’s because of the decline of marriage and of the culture. But go back a few generations and it was the norm. There is no greater happiness in this life than marital love expressed in permanence, fidelity, and openness to life.

I disagree. Humans (as all creatures) are born to reproduce and that only requires a very brief heterosexual physical relationship, actually only physical contact. Human children may need to be nutured for a relatively long time but they do not physically require a mother and/or father. I am sure that there have been millions of children nutured from neither a mother or father that have led very productive lives. Peace.

 

[Debora123]

The only remaining question would be, "What do you care if people call ducks, ‘horses?’

You’re right, I DON’T care if some people refer to a duck as a horse. My problem arises when they want the rest of us to refer to a duck as a horse… because doing so would simply be incorrect.

Likewise, some people from the homosexual community want the rest of us to acknowledge their arrangement as a marriage. Marriage is what it is. To refer to something that is, by it’s very definition, not a marriage would simply be incorrect.

 

[Rob_has_lapsed]

You could say that “Marriage” was not invented by gay people.

Marriage is something that has existed for thousands and thousands of years, and is specifically in reference to a life long union between male and female. That is the definition of marriage.

If they want to get together and have a life long commitment too, they most certainly have the free will to do so, but they need to come up with another word to define their arrangement. Because the word “marriage” is taken and already has a definition.

Although I am in favor of same sex ‘marriages’ the term ‘marriage’ does have somewhat of a history. I would prefer that the state sponsored contract between any two adults be simply identified as a ‘civil union’. Anything beyond that may have an additional title such as a ‘marriage’. Peace.

 

[jimmy]

I disagree. Humans (as all creatures) are born to reproduce and that only requires a very brief heterosexual physical relationship, actually only physical contact. Human children may need to be nutured for a relatively long time but they do not physically require a mother and/or father. I am sure that there have been millions of children nutured from neither a mother or father that have led very productive lives. Peace.

They don’t even need that. Everything could be done in the lab. All they need is someone to bear them for nine months. But really what is someone without a history? What are they without parents? Sounds like an identity crisis in the making.

 

[ASimon]

Why does it bother you that a duck is still called a duck?

It doesn’t. I was just using this example to show how weak the argument actually was. If there was some mass movement to redefine what a duck was, I wouldn’t lose a second of sleep over it. There are more important things with which to concern ourselves.

buffalo:

Because marriage defines a function. Outside the intended function it ceases to have meaning.

Leading me to re-state my question. On what authority do you assert what the intended function of marriage is, and why it’s immutable?

Debora123:

You’re right, I DON’T care if some people refer to a duck as a horse. My problem arises when they want the rest of us to refer to a duck as a horse… because doing so would simply be incorrect.

Likewise, some people from the homosexual community want the rest of us to acknowledge their arrangement as a marriage. Marriage is what it is. To refer to something that is, by it’s very definition, not a marriage would simply be incorrect.

As I said, the gay rights movement, in general, does not concern itself with what religions think of them. The purpose of the movement is to get the secular government of the United States to acknowledge their same sex partnerships as having the same legal standing as heterosexual couples. While a minority of homosexuals would also like to confront and force change within the various Christian denominations, I consider this misguided. For one thing, the same Constitution that, in principle, would allow homosexuals the freedom to marry each other, also protects religions from being forced by the government to alter their doctrines. For another, the Episcopal Church just recently announced they would begin sanctifying same-sex marriages. So a gay couple that really wants the blessing of a religion for their marriage has somewhere to go now.

 

[JimG]

The state of marriage is an indicator of the state of civilization. When marriage, and family structure, become so fractured that the institution of marriage and family begins to crumble, so does the civilization in which that crumbling of family structure occurs.

Family structure is fairly resilient, but not impervious to mortal damage. According to Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” there have been only three “family crises” within the past several thousand years. The first two cases resulted in the collapse of the societies involved; the third instance is in his view now occurring.

I recommend the book for an overview of family structure over the past several millenia.

Tinkering with family structure is not an idle experiment to be toyed with. It has consequences for civilization.

 

[CopticChristian]

The point is that it seems insufficient to defer to long-standing tradition as the primary basis for never changing a word’s definition. Plenty of bad ideas existed in practice for thousands of years before people got around to admitting that these were pretty bad ideas. And the opposition argument then was much the same as it is now. “This idea has been around for thousands of years! You can’t just change it!”

You may not see the point in changing the definition. But you don’t actually need to see the point. Nor, I should add, would you be required to accept the new definition, were it to be codified. If half the American population did decide to start calling ducks “horses,” you could live out the rest of your life asserting the contrary, using whatever arguments you like in defense of your position.

And so it is with marriage. If the definition were changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, you could assert with every breath that these were not “marriages.” Nobody will stop you. Certainly not the secular government which affirms your right to free speech. Nor will said government reach in and force your religious institutions to formally recognize such partnerships as legitimate (This, by the way, is what religious freedom actually looks like).

The only remaining question would be, "What do you care if people call ducks, ‘horses?’

Asimon,

I would have a hard time if we were to call ducks horses…I don’t know about you but my daughter and I watch the cooking channel…I have been waiting for quite a long time to be able to have the time, space and the where with all to make Turduckin…now this would require a Turkey, Chicken and a duck…what am I going to tell my daughter when the time comes that we are going to make Turduckin…sorry honey we are going to be making Turhorsin…now I don’t know about you, but eating a duck is one thing however eating a horse…well I hear they do that in France…

But also when I go to a chinese restaurant and I want Peking Duck…I really would have a hard time asking for Peking Horse…:bigyikes:

 

[ASimon]

Asimon,

I would have a hard time if we were to call ducks horses…I don’t know about you but my daughter and I watch the cooking channel…I have been waiting for quite a long time to be able to have the time, space and the where with all to make Turduckin…now this would require a Turkey, Chicken and a duck…what am I going to tell my daughter when the time comes that we are going to make Turduckin…sorry honey we are going to be making Turhorsin…now I don’t know about you, but eating a duck is one thing however eating a horse…well I hear they do that in France…

But also when I go to a chinese restaurant and I want Peking Duck…I really would have a hard time asking for Peking Horse…:bigyikes:

Sorry to hear of your crippling neurosis. I sympathize - when I was in France, I refused to eat at McDonalds because the frogs had adopted the metric system. I simply could not bring myself to order a quarter-pounder with cheese by anything other than its correct American name.