The Purpose of Marriage

[mek42]

Josh expressed curiosity how anyone else who believed in God, presumably the Christian flavor of deity, could believe that homosexual marriage was morally correct.

I have a question as a rejoinder. Why do many people here appear to believe it necessary that one’s political views reflect their personal opinion? Why is it so far fetched that one might personally believe it is wrong to engage in homosexual behavior, yet also feel that no one outside of the pair so coupling is harmed by said behavior and so, in a free society, said coupling should in no way be infringed on by the State, leading, but not the fullest extreme of logic, to the State allowing same sex marriage?

The basis of this logic being that the State should protect individuals from harm that they do not consent to, but that individuals should be seen as responsible enough to decide on their own, without interference from the State, whether or not to engage in such activities that carry risk of harm as a consensual act.

 

[PRmerger]

Josh expressed curiosity how anyone else who believed in God, presumably the Christian flavor of deity, could believe that homosexual marriage was morally correct.

I have a question as a rejoinder. Why do many people here appear to believe it necessary that one’s political views reflect their personal opinion? Why is it so far fetched that one might personally believe it is wrong to engage in homosexual behavior, yet also feel that no one outside of the pair so coupling is harmed by said behavior and so, in a free society, said coupling should in no way be infringed on by the State, leading, but not the fullest extreme of logic, to the State allowing same sex marriage?

The basis of this logic being that the State should protect individuals from harm that they do not consent to, but that individuals should be seen as responsible enough to decide on their own, without interference from the State, whether or not to engage in such activities that carry risk of harm as a consensual act.

This would then be, it appears, also an argument for polygamy and bestiality?

 

[mek42]

This would then be, it appears, also an argument for polygamy and bestiality?

Definitely not bestiality as the beast is not capable of consent.

Polygamy, well, polygyny at least, has a rich historical precedent. It was even accepted according to Jewish law in OT times. The problem is determining full consent of all parties. Especially in the modern economy, having multiple parental units in the workforce while still having at least one parental unit maintaining the homestead seems like an efficient use of human resources in context of the family.

 

[PRmerger]

Definitely not bestiality as the beast is not capable of consent.

Are you a vegetarian, mek?

Are you against the killing of animals for food, as the beast is not capable of consent?

 

[PRmerger]

Polygamy, well, polygyny at least, has a rich historical precedent. It was even accepted according to Jewish law in OT times.

What Jewish law in the OT accepted polygamy/polygyny?

The problem is determining full consent of all parties. Especially in the modern economy, having multiple parental units in the workforce while still having at least one parental unit maintaining the homestead seems like an efficient use of human resources in context of the family.

So if your daughter assured you that she was giving her full consent to a polyamorous relationship, and wanted to be part of a household in which she was married to a man who had 4 other wives, you’d be okay with her doing this? She assured you that all of the other wives were fully consenting as well…

 

[josh987654321]

Josh expressed curiosity how anyone else who believed in God, presumably the Christian flavor of deity, could believe that homosexual marriage was morally correct.

I have a question as a rejoinder.

For me?

Why do many people here appear to believe it necessary that one’s political views reflect their personal opinion?

Why wouldn’t they?

Why is it so far fetched that one might personally believe it is wrong to engage in homosexual behavior, yet also feel that no one outside of the pair so coupling is harmed by said behavior and so, in a free society, said coupling should in no way be infringed on by the State, leading, but not the fullest extreme of logic, to the State allowing same sex marriage?

So your saying, that while one could personally believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality (same sex marriage) be immoral, one could support and advocate the legalisation of same sex marriage? as a kind of live and let live thing?

If so, there are several problems with that, why do you think it is wrong? and if you know it to be immoral, than would you be loving your homosexual brothers and sisters by advocating that kind of sexual immorality (sin) for them? because remember, same sex marriage does not legalise a homosexual union, It publicly recognises a homosexual union as equivalent and equal to a heterosexual one, which would mean to ignore the basic differences between a man and woman, their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another.

Marriage being between one man and one woman is a moral truth written into natural law itself.

The basis of this logic being that the State should protect individuals from harm that they do not consent to, but that individuals should be seen as responsible enough to decide on their own, without interference from the State, whether or not to engage in such activities that carry risk of harm as a consensual act.

Yea, this is why homosexuality is not criminalised and no one is arguing to have homosexuality made legal or criminalised, they are arguing for same sex marriage, for validation/recognition that such immoral acts be seen as morally equivalent to heterosexual ones, which is simply not true.

This is why I said, that to know that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral and than turn around and advocate (not criminalise) such sexual immorality such as same sex marriage for their homosexual brothers and sisters is gravely immoral.

My question I would put to you Mek42 is, what do you think marriage is? and if marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing, I for one know that marriage does not mean anything, however people certainly do want it to mean anything when the truth doesn’t suit them.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

This is all I am going to say about this young man with Down syndrome, as discussion of him is on the verge of taking him in vain and being disrespectful to his deep, true, profound faith.

From his demeanor, he has a true understanding of the Eucharist. ** He articulates it with every breath of his being. ** He accepts what the Church has told him, and, when asked, “Is this the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?” he will answer serenely, “Amen!”

Not a single fiber of his being would even dream of saying, “The CC says [A] but I don’t believe that. I believe [not-A]”

And that’s what makes him a good Catholic, as it applies to this discussion.

But someone else with a similar person in their church could venture a different opinion of why he’s a good Catholic, based on what they believe makes a good Catholic.

So we’re no closer to what makes a good Catholic.

 

[inocente]

No, inocente.

Catholics are bound to give religious assent to ALL of the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

So is there a ceremony at which this is done once and for all? I have lots of questions, like at what age is this done, how does the person know what they’re agreeing to, what if they don’t realize something until later, etc.

There must be a lot of wriggle room built-in. It stands to reason that the Church doesn’t want members espousing atheism or idolatry or open rebellion or whatever, but it must surely also recognize that no one should be forced to act against their conscience.

*If by the Catechism you mean a textbook, then you are correct–it is only 20 years old.

But I am talking about the Catechism, which is the faith, given once for all, to the saints, which was whole and entire 2000 years ago.*

I don’t see how you can expect serfs to know all that stuff when they couldn’t even read, let alone understand Latin.

*Yes, it is certainly not a contract. We are agreed on that.

As far as it being “no more than” anything, well, that is like saying that Shakespeare’s sonnets are “no more than” a bunch of pretty sounding words.

No Church document has ever stated that the Catechism is “no more than” anything.*

Then we’re agreed that CCC 12 “It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful” means it is not even essential reading, much less a binding contract.

 

[inocente]

inocente;11062055:

You’ll have to explain in some detail how knowing 2,865 paragraphs in the 20 year-old Catechism (2nd Edition) relates to loving God, sorry but that one flew straight over my head, what did the peasants do before 1992, what’s literacy got to do with loving God, etc., etc.?

I will simply refer you to Matthew 22:37.

Jesus sums up all the law in one line, He says all you need is to know is love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself.

You appear to be saying that the Catechism (2nd Edition) is redundant, all you need is love.

 

[inocente]

I know that Inocente, in a posting on this thread, cited academic articles regarding the benefits of homosexuality in terms of evolutionary “adaptation”. But, in all honesty, these articles were somewhat daunting.

Did I? Oops, forgot.

Any idea of the post number? Then I might remember what it was about.

 

[inocente]

inocente;11062055:

Incidentally, it’s “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”. So heart, soul and strength come before mind, mind comes last, mind is least important.

I don’t have a problem with that paradigm, inocente.

Then we are as one, the mind stuff (including book learning) is less important than the heart.

 

[josh987654321]

But someone else with a similar person in their church could venture a different opinion of why he’s a good Catholic, based on what they believe makes a good Catholic.

So we’re no closer to what makes a good Catholic.

Okay, for argument sake, I’ll agree.

What now? What’s your point when it comes to same sex marriage? I just don’t see where you are trying to go with this. Is it to try and discredit Catholic beliefs?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Jesus sums up all the law in one line, He says all you need is to know is love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Amen

You appear to be saying that the Catechism (2nd Edition) is redundant, all you need is love.

But remember, love without truth would be blind.

Then we are as one, the mind stuff (including book learning) is less important than the heart.

Yup

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Okay, for argument sake, I’ll agree.

What now? What’s your point when it comes to same sex marriage?

I was already of the opinion that the good Catholic / bad Catholic dichotomy doesn’t get us anywhere as far as this discussion goes. It seems to be more of a distraction than a contribution as it doesn’t seem to do anything that I can see for the purpose of marriage discussion.

 

[josh987654321]

I was already of the opinion that the good Catholic / bad Catholic dichotomy doesn’t get us anywhere as far as this discussion goes. It seems to be more of a distraction than a contribution as it doesn’t seem to do anything that I can see for the purpose of marriage discussion.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[PRmerger]

Then we are as one, the mind stuff (including book learning) is less important than the heart.

 

[PRmerger]

But someone else with a similar person in their church could venture a different opinion of why he’s a good Catholic, based on what they believe makes a good Catholic.

Sure. As long as the similar person is not professing/doing something that is contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So we’re no closer to what makes a good Catholic.

Of course we are. A good Catholic is someone who knows the faith, as articulated by the Magisterium, and gives religious assent to it.

A bad Catholic is someone who professes something contrary to the faith.

A lukewarm Catholic is someone who looks like this when asked to provide apologia for any particular teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how you can expect serfs to know all that stuff when they couldn’t even read, let alone understand Latin.

I’m not sure why you think that illiterate means unintelligent and unable to learn.

Then we’re agreed that CCC 12 “It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful” means it is not even essential reading, much less a binding contract.

On the fact that it is not a binding contract, we are agreed.

As far as it not even being essential reading, that’s an odd conclusion to draw from CCC 12. It appears to be a non-sequitur to me.

 

[PRmerger]

You appear to be saying that the Catechism (2nd Edition) is redundant, all you need is love.

Yes. LOVE! We must LOVE God with our entire MIND.

And here is how we know God with our MIND:

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
vatican.va/

 

[PRmerger]

I was already of the opinion that the good Catholic / bad Catholic dichotomy doesn’t get us anywhere as far as this discussion goes.

Only insofar as it refutes inocente’s position that 6 out of 10 US Catholics support homosexual “marriage.”

If they can’t even articulate what the purpose of marriage is, as proclaimed by the CC, how can they disagree with the CC’s teaching?

It’s like a kindergartner being asked if he supports banning immunizations. He has no idea to what he is actually responding. All he knows is, “Yes! I do want to ban them! They hurt!”