I am not talking about popularity. I am talking about common sense.
When was marriage between two men? Are you saying slavery and Christian persecution are like marriage?
The norm has allows been male and female. This is known from history, logic, common sense, tradition, and observation. Prove otherwise.
Ross,
As I asked, when was same sex “marriage” ever the norm or a significant aberration?
The ability that was taken away from gay people by proposition 8 was a legal one. Whether or not you think that gay unions can constitute a “marriage” is beside the point that some ability to have legal rights apply to gay persons’ relationship with their loved ones were taken away.
Of course Catholics can question teachings.
I’m afraid I can’t assert that with your confidence. But taking it for argument’s sake, it would be imprudent to assume that a same-gender relationship will necessarily involve illicit sexual relations (however defined) any more than a mixed-gender one. There is a category error here: there is no single “immoral” res under which all same-gender unions can be grouped in order for any pronouncement to be made one way or another on their collective “morality.” We might suggest the ability to undergo a “normal” fertilization and delivery - if we were prepared to say that the infertile could not marry, that those who opt exclusively to adopt are in a state of mortal sin, and that orphanhood is a preferable fate for children raised by two mothers or fathers.
Again, if we take it as read that marriage is ordained for the ordering of the domestic church, the hallowing of (what would otherwise be) fornication, and the blessing of lifelong and exclusive unions for the extension of the species, then it’s not clear what this “good” which all and only mixed-gender unions serve might be. It’s awfully easy hard to make blanket moral denunciations on the internet: it’s comparatively difficult to do so when the families in question live and work and worship along side you and - wonder of wonders! - fulfil the same mitzvot you and your spouse do in every ostensible way. One reason why such sentiments have a way of dissipating as one gets to know those families.
I’d be happy to clarify any specific point of confusion. But in a nutshell, you’re asking me to swallow the proposition that marriage is reducible to the genitalia of the spouses, while I am the one arguing that the words of the marriage liturgy mean what they say - and universally, rather than selectively. So I’m not prepared to concede that prima facie you are arguing “orthodoxy” and I “dissent.” On the contrary, you’re arguing that the Catholic doctrines of marriage may or may not be true depending who’s asking!
I’ll give you an analogy. The Big Mac burger was invented by McDonalds. Therefore, McDonalds defines what is a Big Mac burger. So back to my question which was:
But I’m not arguing about the definition of the word ‘marriage’. I’m arguing that the ability of homosexuals to have certain legal benefits apply to them and their loved one were taken away by proposition 8, which was supported by the Catholic Church.
Why not? It is self evident.
How would any relations between same sexed persons not be illicit?
There is a category error. Placing same sex acts on the same moral level as infertile couples and those who adopt is an error. There is a distinct difference.
Ah the usual relativism. We all work with people who act immorally, though they may be polite and kind in a secular sense. If I follow your logic then if we are friends with a pornographer then we should endorse pornography because the person has a family.
That is an important aspect unless you redefine marriage as some other thing than what it is.
Huh?
Mormons and others supported Proposition 8 along with faithful Catholics. I’m sure that some atheists support traditional marriage, too, because all one needs is to open their eyes to recognize biology and natural law. Proposition 8 wasn’t about changing anything. It was about keeping marriage the way it has always been since the first man and woman walked the earth. Here’s an analogy. Someone crashes into your car, and you tell them to fix it. I don’t understand how you can believe that the state can just make up rights out of thin air at a whim. I guess since you don’t believe in God the state becomes your god by default.
Incorrect. It was about changing the law in California. A change which the Catholic Church supported, and which homosexuals generally didn’t. It is because of actions like that by the Church that many homosexuals do not like the Church.
Incorrect. Has marriage always allowed divorce? Legal marriage in California does while Catholic marriage does not. At some points in the past, multiple wives were allowed, see Solomon and David. There is not one single version of marriage, there are many different versions of marriage.
They hate the Catholic Church for being the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church promotes what she knows by the wisdom of God is for the good of mankind. If anyone hates the Catholic Church for holding to her ancient doctrines the one they really hate is Jesus since all the Church does is promote his teachings. Gay activists act according to the flesh, but the Catholic Church acts according to the spirit given to her by God.
Gay activists don’t like the LDS church either for that reason. However, the Catholic Church is generally more powerful than the LDS church.
Individual atheists believe all sorts of things because all atheism is is not believing that a deity exists.
It changed how the law treats gay people and their partners.
They dislike the Catholic Church because it pushes for changing laws against them and teaches that they are disordered.
Do you believe that the definition of marriage should always be up for debate?
I’m not trying to debate about a definition of a word. My point in the portion you quoted was that protecting the ability of a straight couple to get a marriage license and to foster the relationship does not entail banning a homosexual couple from getting a marriage license.
This is incorrect, rossum.
This is about more than that. For example, so-called “same-sex marriage” became the law and schools started teaching it to kids in Kindergarten and would not let parents opt out of them indoctrinating their kids in it. The ones who are opposed to this know that this is only a tool to force everyone to approve of homosexual behavior or be punished by the law. The HHS mandate is another example of something becoming government law and then it gets forced on everyone because it became government law. Marriage in the United States has been defined as being between a man and a woman since the founding of the nation. So you can blame the founding fathers for that if you don’t like it. The Catholic Church has a special stake in this because when everyone else gives in to the pressures from the government to approve of changing the definition of marriage the Catholic Church will be the only one to face the punishment for not complying. Our doctrines come directly from Christ (God) who is the way the truth and the life, so changing our teachings is not an option.
Well apparently not, since some of us don’t “get it”
What do you think “relations” means? Do you associate only with people of the opposite sex, or are you just making assumptions about the sexual acts other people may or may not be participating in?
Oh, so gay couples can conceive now? Or is this one of your “self-evident” assertions? (More on the circularity of the marriage-is-for-a-man-and-a-woman-because-a-man-and-a-woman-make-a-marriage lark).
The difference, of course, being that it is their having a family which you hold to be a sin (and not an “objective” sin, because after all your own family is hunkey-dorey). If you were producing pornography or cheating on your taxes while condemning it as a sin for other people, then yes, your objection to the pornographer/cheat would be as inconsistent as your objection to the gay married couple. The pornographer, in order to garner your disapproval, has to commit a positive act of immorality: i.e. producing pornography and exploiting his “models” &c &c. The gay couple has only to follow the same standard of “fidelity within, abstinence without” which you hold yourself to! “They tie on heavy burdens and do not lift a finger,” indeed!
I’m getting a bit exasperated with the naive/dismissive routine. I am able to affirm the Biblical truths “It is not good for the man to be alone” or “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” without attaching to them the asterisks you need to. You want to say to gays, “Oh sorry, God was actually just talking about us. Trust me, we’re tight, I know what he *meant *to say.” What about that is presenting you with difficulty? Any more smug nonvocal syllables to throw at me?
Rose,Well apparently not, since some of us don’t “get it”
What do you think “relations” means? Do you associate only with people of the opposite sex, or are you just making assumptions about the sexual acts other people may or may not be participating in?
Oh, so gay couples can conceive now? Or is this one of your “self-evident” assertions? (More on the circularity of the marriage-is-for-a-man-and-a-woman-because-a-man-and-a-woman-make-a-marriage lark).
The difference, of course, being that it is their having a family which you hold to be a sin (and not an “objective” sin, because after all your own family is hunkey-dorey). If you were producing pornography or cheating on your taxes while condemning it as a sin for other people, then yes, your objection to the pornographer/cheat would be as inconsistent as your objection to the gay married couple. The pornographer, in order to garner your disapproval, has to commit a positive act of immorality: i.e. producing pornography and exploiting his “models” &c &c. The gay couple has only to follow the same standard of “fidelity within, abstinence without” which you hold yourself to! “They tie on heavy burdens and do not lift a finger,” indeed!
I’m getting a bit exasperated with the naive/dismissive routine. I am able to affirm the Biblical truths “It is not good for the man to be alone” or “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” without attaching to them the asterisks you need to. You want to say to gays, “Oh sorry, God was actually just talking about us. Trust me, we’re tight, I know what he *meant *to say.” What about that is presenting you with difficulty? Any more smug nonvocal syllables to throw at me?
The limit is not sex. Homosexuals have sex. Who limits this? They act as they choose. They don’t need to be married to have sex. Are you going to argue that marriage is essential to have a sex act.
Oh no! Children were taught that marriage laws applied to gay couples. The horror!