Why "Marriage Equality" really means "DEATH TO MARRIAGE"

[CJECulver]

Telling a Catholic to leave the Church… How very Christian of you.

You yourself said if the opinions expressed here would representative of the Church’s teachings you’d be “finding another religion fast.”

You set the parameters; jonathan_hili simply followed up.

In telling me I should not be listening to the Church

Weren’t you just complaining about people misrepresenting your words? jonathan_hili said nothing of the kind.

And, indeed, nowhere is it a dogma that I should always and everywhere agree with the Church… But I am free to act within my own conscience about whether or not I agree with what the Church tells the rest of the world to do.

Nowhere is it a dogma that you are free to reject all Catholic teachings that are not official dogmas. That is a very dangerous argument to make. On the issues of homosexuality and SSM the Church has spoken clearly, consistently and unequivocally. Arguing that you are free to ignore what the Church has said here just because it hasn’t been elevated to the status of dogma sounds suspiciously like an argument looking for a loophole.

I’ve already referred you to “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, which comes straight from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. When the CDF issues a teaching on a matter of faith and morals, to pretend as if it’s something we’re free to ignore is, quite literally, playing with hellfire.

As to the individual conscience, one is not merely “free” to follow it, one is obligated to do so. But – and this is the part modernists love to ignore – we are also obligated to make sure our consciences are formed according to the moral teachings of the Church. The conscience may be the compass, but the teachings of the Church are True North. Any compass that points elsewhere is a very dangerous guide. And if our compass points elsewhere due to our own religious lethargy or stubbornness of will, then we are culpable for that.

My words are repeatedly taken and portrayed as opposing the Church

The assertions you’ve been making in this thread are in opposition to the Church’s teaching. That is an objective fact.

and that in doing so I am therefore sinful and not Catholic.

I’m open to correction (and I admit I haven’t ready every post), but I haven’t seen anyone say either. What we have consistently said is that the assertions you make are contradictory to the moral law of God, and that one cannot hold the positions you’ve espoused and still claim to be a faithful Catholic.

These people have the right to make their own rules.

No one, not Catholic, not Buddhist, not pagan, agnostic or atheist, has the right to make rules contrary to God’s moral law. We are not, as I’ve already explained on at least two occasions, talking about some set of rules the Catholic Church made up just because it gets its kicks trying to poke its nose into peoples’ private lives. It is the law of God. No man-made law can supercede the laws of God.

To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls. (CCC No. 2032)

You have consistently and repeatedly made assertions contrary to the above, in insisting that the Catholic Church has no business interfering in the affairs of anyone outside the Church. For the Church to bow to your assertions would be to abandon the divinely appoint mission God has bestowed on her. The Church dare not abandon that task. Not even if DexUK wishes it.

 

[DexUK]

I really do wonder whether people see what I write, read only the first two lines and then immediately jump in to disagree…

As regards the morality of ‘polymarriage’ (or polyamorous relationships) I wrote:

I don’t think it’s good or healthy for many reasons, not least of which is the concept of an imbalance in affections between the people in the relationship (i.e. favourites), the consequent lack of balance in consent (including, but not limited to, the pressure brought to bear on one person by two others held in differing levels of regard).

It is therefore implicit in what I am saying that in a polyamorous relationship there is likely to be an element of one party being abused by another through the effect that the variations in consent, and therefore lack of true and full consent, that would apply. That is automatically a barrier to morals since nobody in such a situation would love the other two parties precisely equally. One person (not necessarily the same person at all times) would inevitably have the upper hand and an element of compulsion would likely exist. Maybe not an overwhelming one, but enough of one to prevent it being fully consensual.

If it were a traditional man and woman, one would not expect a marriage to be valid where one party enters it in order to use the other as a device or to abuse. That would nullify any vows made in advance.

Now, as for

This argument for same sex marriage is like women arguing to be recognised as men for equality sake.

Well, I’m sorry, but for all practical purposes women ARE equal to men. Apart from biological functions, there is no reason why a woman shouldn’t be prevented by law from doing anything a man could do. That means women can be president, soldiers, chief executives and, of course, men can, if they wish, be au pairs, nurses, home makers, etc. There are no jobs a woman shouldn’t do and frankly I consider the suggestion that the law should be allowed to discriminate between genders somewhat antediluvian…

 

[DexUK]

No one, not Catholic, not Buddhist, not pagan, agnostic or atheist, has the right to make rules contrary to God’s moral law. We are not, as I’ve already explained on at least two occasions, talking about some set of rules the Catholic Church made up just because it gets its kicks trying to poke its nose into peoples’ private lives. It is the law of God. No man-made law can supercede the laws of God.

And that is fine for Catholics. But you’re making a religious argument (which is fine if you’re talking to a Catholic) but my main point is that 80% of the world’s population isn’t Catholic, and therefore are not bound by OUR religious convictions. What they do is up to them.

 

[josh987654321]

Well, I’m sorry, but for all practical purposes women ARE equal to men. Apart from biological functions, there is no reason why a woman shouldn’t be prevented by law from doing anything a man could do. That means women can be president, soldiers, chief executives and, of course, men can, if they wish, be au pairs, nurses, home makers, etc. There are no jobs a woman shouldn’t do and frankly I consider the suggestion that the law should be allowed to discriminate between genders somewhat antediluvian…

haha, out of all my argument this is all you brought up?

You miss interpreted what I meant, I said it’s like women being recognised as men… literally, as in all women are called men for equality sake.

So yes men and women are physically different however they are treated equally and rightly so, just as heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated equally.

However homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal, so same sex marriage is a false equality, it’s an illusion, homosexuality and heterosexuality shouldn’t be treated equally and to say that they should with same sex marriage is illogical, it’s ignoring the obvious sexual anatomy of a man and a woman and their physical compatability.

Please read my previous post again and let me know what you disagree with, thank you.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[jonathan_hili]

It is therefore implicit in what I am saying that in a polyamorous relationship there is likely to be an element of one party being abused by another through the effect that the variations in consent, and therefore lack of true and full consent, that would apply. That is automatically a barrier to morals since nobody in such a situation would love the other two parties precisely equally. One person (not necessarily the same person at all times) would inevitably have the upper hand and an element of compulsion would likely exist. Maybe not an overwhelming one, but enough of one to prevent it being fully consensual.

Okay, Dex, so are you saying that you would oppose the legalisation of polygamy?

 

[DexUK]

haha, out of all my argument this is all you brought up?

You miss interpreted what I meant, I said it’s like women being recognised as men… literally, as in all women are called men for equality sake.

So yes men and women are physically different however they are treated equally and rightly so, just as heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated equally.

However homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal, so same sex marriage is a false equality, it’s an illusion, homosexuality and heterosexuality shouldn’t be treated equally and to say that they should with same sex marriage is illogical, it’s ignoring the obvious sexual anatomy of a man and a woman and their physical compatability.

Please read my previous post again and let me know what you disagree with, thank you.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Fair enough, I misinterpreted - I apologise. (When I get something factually wrong I do admit it!)

Of course homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, but there exist people out there who aren’t Catholic who are prepared to treat them as equivalent and legislate accordingly so that both populations have equal access to legislative protections and rights. Nobody is legislating to change religious convictions, least of all me.

 

[josh987654321]

Fair enough, I misinterpreted - I apologise. (When I get something factually wrong I do admit it!)

I wasn’t having a shot or anything, I was more laughing at myself that I didn’t clarify it enough, that I can see how easily that could be miss interpreted and I was happy that you agree with everything I was saying.

Of course homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, but there exist people out there who aren’t Catholic who are prepared to treat them as equivalent and legislate accordingly so that both populations have equal access to legislative protections and rights. Nobody is legislating to change religious convictions, least of all me.

Your right there is a group out there who are prepared to treat them as equivalent, but facts are facts, they are not equivilant in regards to marriage, homosexuality and heterosexuality are fundamentally different, they might want to play into a false equality but I certainly don’t want to and I should have the right not to.

If they want to take part in an illusion than that is their business, but for the government to also take part and legalise an illusion, would be illogical, same sex marriage, equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality is just factually incorrect, so it would be foolish for the goverment to legalise a false equality and illusion because a group wish to take part in it.

It would be illogical for the goverment to recognise a false equality simply because a group wanted to do it and it would be wrong to force others to play along with a false equality like same sex marriage by making it law.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[markeverett49]

It is claims like this that will lose the “culture wars”…well…not lose…but “have lost” the culture wars. Go ahead and make these claims…in fact spread the word with your every breath and action. Your claims make no sense to most of the “common people”…the common people hear the hate…they witness the violence…the see the discrimiantion your claims foster…no one is duped…people know they have a better moral compass than the one you offer…

The “moral compass” appeal gives you away. Secularists DENY anyone has a moral compass, as that would suggest that something akin to natural law (–a moral reality transcending time and cultures.) You deny this. The overthrowing of conventional morality is based in a repudiation of the notion of moral truth. Morality is not based in actual right and wrong but in what is most efficient for society. (This is the utilitarian view, which dominates in the Western world.) It is not a better moral compass, it is not a moral compass at all, and is rooted in the conviction that there cannot be a moral compass. Rather, it is an efficient method to bring about what one has decided is most important for society. (Utilitarians vary as to just what that is.)

You find yourself in a familiar position: you throw off conventional morality and are offended that not everyone adopts your self-serving substitute as the ‘real’ or ‘true’ morality.

 

[CopticChristian]

Huh?

Was this a rant or a response to a particular comment?

Unless you haven’t noticed, most of us have been pouncing on poor Dex. :slapfight:

JH,

I totally approve of opposing Dex for the sake of pointing out error and allowing lurkers to view that error. I agree that Dex is being hammered and pounced however I do not approve of gloating over the obvious. It is my intention and I am sure it is the intention of all those including Fix and those that oppose Dex to draw Dex to a reasoned approach to his position in the Faith and this should be done in an adult way.

To say Dex is being pounced, in my opinion, if said to me not having changed my mind would cause me to dig my heels in further and continue to try to prove my erroneous points.

I ask you to defer from pointing out the obvious.

 

[atheistgirl]

I am repeatedly misrepresented here. My words are repeatedly taken and portrayed as opposing the Church and that in doing so I am therefore sinful and not Catholic. Well, I have news for you: the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly over the acts and desires of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLIC. The Catholic Church is not a secular authority because, shock horror, 82% of the population of the planet are not Catholic (even nominally). These people have the right to make their own rules. If we want to stop those rules, we need to be in the majority. If we were in the majority, that would be just fine, but we’re not. And the Church, the Pope even, recognises this. Now I know exactly where my loyalty lies. And I won’t be told that I am to leave the Church because some people here are SO uncharitable towards the rest of the world that only wishes to live its life peacefully and on its own terms.

I think you are handling yourself extremely well in the face of such histrionics and misrepresentations. .

I also agree with your points above.

Sarah x

 

[jonathan_hili]

Sheeshh… does anyone on this forum have a sense of humour? :egyptian:

I’m sure Dex wasn’t offended.

(You weren’t offended, were you Dex?)

 

[CopticChristian]

Sheeshh… does anyone on this forum have a sense of humour? :egyptian:

I’m sure Dex wasn’t offended.

(You weren’t offended, were you Dex?)

Explain to me the humor in

Marriage equality as it concerns Same Sex Marriage…

Church teaching on marriage as it concerns Same Sex Marriage…

Evils of Abortion and Same Sex Marriage and support of either…

attempts to aid an understanding of Church teaching…

 

[CopticChristian]

I think you are handling yourself extremely well in the face of such histrionics and misrepresentations. .

I also agree with your points above.

Sarah x

Fix, myself and others disagree and see Church Teachings about morality factual and not histrionic nor misprepresented.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I think you are handling yourself extremely well in the face of such histrionics and misrepresentations. .

I also agree with your points above.

Sarah x

I’m not sure he is being misrepresented, Sarah, at least I hope I’m not misrepresenting him.

Dex believes that a Catholic can in good conscience not oppose same-sex marriage legislation either socially or politically (I’m assuming the latter, since it hasn’t been made explicit). However, myself and others are arguing that a Catholic must oppose immoral laws even if others in society will disagree with him or her.

And, as I’ve said before, we can point to the Pope - since this is something he did as Cardinal Bergoglio, opposing same-sex marriage legislation in Argentina.

 

[DexUK]

Sheeshh… does anyone on this forum have a sense of humour? :egyptian:

I’m sure Dex wasn’t offended.

(You weren’t offended, were you Dex?)

Like most people I do get offended from time to time - I’m not immune, especially if I’m misquoted, or if I find people telling me that I think something which I don’t - but you’re not guilty of that, so no… I’m not offended. It actually does take quite a lot of repeated attempts to properly offend me. I’m very very forgiving as a person.

 

[CJECulver]

And that is fine for Catholics. But you’re making a religious argument (which is fine if you’re talking to a Catholic) but my main point is that 80% of the world’s population isn’t Catholic, and therefore are not bound by OUR religious convictions. What they do is up to them.

Since the point under discussion is whether the views you’ve espoused are in concert with the teachings of the Church, and whether a Catholic is free to ignore Church teachings, then, umm, of course I’m making a religious argument. What other kind of argument would I be making?

 

[CopticChristian]

Since the point under discussion is whether the views you’ve espoused are in concert with the teachings of the Church, and whether a Catholic is free to ignore Church teachings, then, umm, of course I’m making a religious argument. What other kind of argument would I be making?

In the context of Catholic thought, believing in revealed truth…it is more than just a religous argument…truth is truth and cannot change and cannot be ignored…while athiests and others deny this as Catholics to fellow Catholics we must insist on it.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I know on a philosophy website I post on I disagreed with some atheists and agnostics that homosexuals are being persecuted by being denied legal marital recognition.

To illustrate this I offered the example of the male heroin addict that is heterosexual but exchanges sex with another male for a little heroin. If caught in the act of sex in a room by cops, without their knowledge of any transactions or exchanges for sex, the heroin addict will not be arrested and charged for homosexuality. He will however possibly be arrested and charged for possession of an illegal drug.

Reflecting on the city of Milwaukee I see gay night clubs that operate in the open. I don’t see Gestapo tactics to hunt down homosexuals. However, as a comparison the Gestapo hunting for drug addicts and dealers (mostly dealers) is pretty prevalent. In real life practical terms I would call the latter of the two institutionalized persecution.

Nonetheless, gay marriage has captured the hearts and minds of people and “a season and time for everything,” so, gay marriage will come to be normalized and it will become legal in most states and most Western countries if not all, in due time.

What I have learned from life and living in Milwaukee and my Milwaukee neighborhood and family is that ultimately it does not matter what 99% of the people around you do or believe. You are responsible for yourself. Even if that means living in a neighborhood, city, or nation where you are a figurative Chuck Noland alone on an island (though in this case surrounded on the island by others).

Cast Away trailer: youtube.com/watch?v=PJvosb4UCLs

What I hear from those obsessed with opposing gay marriage is that they fear they sense or feel a new wind of a changing time, and that change is right on the horizon. They fear becoming a minority in beliefs, and worst yet… possibly a Chuck Noland.

At some point Tom Hank’s character made the decision to erect a small craft and brave the dangerous ocean waters to find his civilization. He found that risk preferable to staying on the island he was on.

I don’t really sympathize with those opposing gay marriage.

From my own life experiences I find the creation and acceptance of gay marriage to be one of the tiniest of bumps in the roads I have to cross. And speaking of crosses, it would have to be one of the tiniest I’d have to carry, especially since it is not directly done on to me, more importantly heterosexuals far out number homosexuals.

I don’t put homosexuality on the same level as abortion either. The latter terminates a life. Kind of like murder is worse than stealing someone’s umbrella.

When gay marriage is approved–and it will be–I’ll treat those married couples and any children they are legally and personally responsible for, with all the charity I’d give Christ. At least I’d hope so.

Their life is for them. It’s not my life.

 

[90Domer]

You cannot be a Catholic in good standing and be ambivalent about others who commit mortal sins. You need to represent the Catholic faith and teachings in all venues.

 

[CopticChristian]

You cannot be a Catholic in good standing and be ambivalent about others who commit mortal sins. You need to represent the Catholic faith and teachings in all venues.

I like this one too and I shall add it to the list of statements by Fix, Elizabeth and now you…