S
sw85
Guest
Wait, where in the world are you deriving your notion of “human rights” from if you reject Catholicism? You certainly aren’t getting them from natural law theory.
- Status
J
John21652
Guest
It is quite noticeable that you are an expert at quoting very selectively from the writings of othersand that your very selective quotes are aimed at denigrating the Catholic Church. In the process your disingenuousness has caught you out.
The post by Rock Happy which you selectively quoted from, post #5was extensively and comprehensively rebutted in post #31. Rock Happy posted drivel and now you have selected the best of his worst and used it to make a point against the Church. In doing so you have once again written erroneously. Any one of any intellectual ability can tell the difference between Christianity and Judaism. What differentiated Christianity from Catholicism was those aspects of the old Mosaic Law which applied to the Jews and not to anyone else. In fact, most of the old laws could not have applied to anyone but the Jews. Of course there was the moderating influence of Jesus Christ himself. It was He who said He had not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
Now for the interesting part of your post. You began by talking of the old Mosaic Law. Then you got to the part about women “keeping silent in churches”. That wasn’t part of the old Mosaic law, was it? Obedience was, but not keeping silent in Church. There were no “churches” before Christ. Notwithstanding, many great scholrs and theologians have explained Paul’s missive. You, however, in your duplicity, would distort the truth of the matter as evidenced by your reference to slavery. Agian, any scholar worth his salt knows that Christianity represented a new covenant. Much of the old law was swept away. It was Christianity, more than any other force in the world, which eventually prevailed against the institution of slavery. You, however, would use a sleight of hand to admonish Catholicism on that issue.
You have a habit of doing this. You recognise it yourself when in post #49 you actually own up to having been called on your antagonism to the church by other posters. You aligned yourself with Rock Happy’s sloppy posting and have dupilicitously been very selective about those parts of his post which you then use to further admonish and denigrate the Church. You have done yourself a great disservice.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Sorry! I’m not trying to be creepy. The non-confrontationalist in me often tries to defuse tension with emoticons. 
J
JimG
Guest
My mother in law went blind early in her marriage. Yet she was somehow able to continue to renew her drivers license!
A blind woman with a drivers license. Homosexual marriage. Perfect analogy.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Just because someone might not agree with you or quotes passages, does not equate to wanting to spit on Catholics or to denigrating the Catholic Church. You do not know me. And I find such accusations rather uncharitable. In any case, carry on. God bless you in your faith journey. Peace.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
No offense is meant with my post in reaction to yours.
Certainly, we know each other in an internet forum only by our posts. You did not accrue 4000+ posts without revealing a lot about your beliefs. By the way, we have not sparred much before, but we did a little bit during the first six months I joined CAF in late 2009. Your views then were not, how should I say, too controversial from a Catholic perspective, and if I recall correctly, you had a Catholic label before. Anyway, since then, I would catch your posts here and there, but will not claim I have read them all.
I think the phrase ‘wanting to spit on Catholics’ conjures a not so nice visceral reaction. Perhaps it is not a good phrase to use in debating in this forum. But denigration of the Catholic Church, i.e., her teachings, is what other members read in your posts as a result of your largely moral relativist views. Your posts on various subjects come across as favoring private interpretation of scripture and Catholic teaching, favoring multiculturalism and liberalism. I even caught one critique of your view by a new convert to the Catholic faith and a relatively new CAF member. The thread was in the Non-Catholic Religions sub-forum. I thought he was obviously very analytical and astute – and he put the finger easily on what he sees in your posts – indifferentism – same thing as moral relativism.
,
B
boncrayon
Guest
human rights is from the legal humanistic relm. God does not give “rights”, only commandments! (god does however expect the dignity of the human body and spirit and the “right” to life!
C
CMatt25
Guest
Hi InSearchofGrace, I have elsewhere on the forum posted a number of times that I do not believe ultimate moral truth is relative. I’m merely on my faith walk like everyone else. But that aside, if someone has different views or beliefs than the Catholic faith, even if that someone’s views were largely moral relativist, that does not equate to wanting to denigrate the Catholic Church. To get back to the topic of the thread, the United Church of Christ for instance supports gay marriage. Other Christians also have different beliefs about homosexuaity. It does not mean they want to denigrate the Catholic Church. They simply don’t share every belief. There’s a difference to be seen. In any case, I have nothing more to add or to share here on this thread. And I am sorry for intruding. God bless you. Peace.
S
sequoyagurl988
Guest
I don’t agree with gay marriage, but I also don’t agree with making it illegal. This country was based on the freedom of the law from religious prejudice. Believe it or not, there really are a lot of people who think the Church’s desire to ban gay marriage is just as messed up as we think others’ desire to allow it is.
The law shouldn’t dictate every moral issue. It should address those moral issues that are grave injustices on a basic human level- murder, rape, theft, etc. Issues where one person’s actions cause physical harm to another, or impede the other’s ability to live as they choose. Gay marriage is not one of those issues. It’s about two people who want to establish a life together, and it shouldn’t be the business of the law to decide who can and can’t do that so long as both parties are of age and of sound mind.
The average gay couple isn’t interfering with anyone else’s life just by existing. Maybe it would be weird for a kid to be raised in that kind of household, but then again, maybe not. There are worse things any couple, gay or straight, could do than give an otherwise unwanted child a home with love, structure, discipline, and food on the table. Gay parents are just as capable of loving their kids as straight parents are, and straight parents are just as capable of screwing their kids up as gay parents are.
So no, I don’t think gay couples SHOULD get married. But the Catholic Church already makes a huge distinction between a legal marriage and marriage in the eyes of the Church. We, as Catholics, should be more concerned with promoting our views on the subject in a loving way than with attacking gay marriage advocates and demanding that gay marriage be made illegal. Let’s respect other people’s opinions in the legal sphere, and they’ll learn to respect ours.
The law shouldn’t dictate every moral issue. It should address those moral issues that are grave injustices on a basic human level- murder, rape, theft, etc. Issues where one person’s actions cause physical harm to another, or impede the other’s ability to live as they choose. Gay marriage is not one of those issues. It’s about two people who want to establish a life together, and it shouldn’t be the business of the law to decide who can and can’t do that so long as both parties are of age and of sound mind.
The average gay couple isn’t interfering with anyone else’s life just by existing. Maybe it would be weird for a kid to be raised in that kind of household, but then again, maybe not. There are worse things any couple, gay or straight, could do than give an otherwise unwanted child a home with love, structure, discipline, and food on the table. Gay parents are just as capable of loving their kids as straight parents are, and straight parents are just as capable of screwing their kids up as gay parents are.
So no, I don’t think gay couples SHOULD get married. But the Catholic Church already makes a huge distinction between a legal marriage and marriage in the eyes of the Church. We, as Catholics, should be more concerned with promoting our views on the subject in a loving way than with attacking gay marriage advocates and demanding that gay marriage be made illegal. Let’s respect other people’s opinions in the legal sphere, and they’ll learn to respect ours.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The Catholic Church does not teach that the definition of marriage in secular society is irrelevant just because it is not equivalent to a sacramental marriage. We’re not “making gay marriage illegal.” We’re asking that marriage not be falsely re-defined so that gay couples can gain a status that they desire by artificially pretending that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent. The differences are real, and the differences have practical ramifications. We are talking about making out-of-wedlock conceptions the legal norm. We are talking about requiring that the health department to put two people of the same gender on a birth certificate and pretending that those two are a child’s biological parents. That isn’t an issue of “fairness”! It is the enshrinement of double-speak that pretends that the facts of biological paternity and maternity are irrelevant. That isn’t just nuts. It is Orwellian!!
This is not an issue of fairness. Gay advocates don’t want every sort of non-traditional family or household to be on an equal footing. They want homosexual couples to be on an equal footing with heterosexual couples. This is not about fairness. It is about winning status and preferring a dearly-held falsehood over the truth.
J
John21652
Guest
You seem to not realise that the issue of gay marriage does not have religious intolerance, or bigorty, as an opposing factor. It has never been legal because the notion of two people of the same sex being married has never been an issue before, in any society, ever. It involves a redefining of what marriage is and what it means and that is an issue which has societal ramifications which transcend religion. Those who you seem to think that the Catholic Church is screwed up on this issue are most probably anti-catholic bigots, because the catholic Church uses a Natural Law argument to oppose gay marriage and to defend the definition as it has been accepted by every society since the dawn of civilisation. The Catholic Church views marriage as a sacrament, a gift from God. Even those who don’t accept that should still realise that marriage is about to be redefined with massive social implications attached to the descision.
Every law has a moral component. Morals are principles which guide human behaviour. Some are enshrined in legislation, some are not. Gay marriage is indeed a moral issue that is pertinent to the whole of society. In fact, it has been amply demonstrated that gay marriage will harm society, not add to the public good.
Gay couples can’t even have their own children, unless they momentarily abandon their ‘gayness’ and seek outside assistance, or if they adopt other people’s kids. It doesn’t come any screwier than that! It has also been the norm that children have a mummy and a daddy. nature decreed that to be the case. The gays, of course, want to overide mother nature, if not God.
So no, I don’t think gay couples SHOULD get married. But the Catholic Church already makes a huge distinction between a legal marriage and marriage in the eyes of the Church. We, as Catholics, should be more concerned with promoting our views on the subject in a loving way than with attacking gay marriage advocates and demanding that gay marriage be made illegal. Let’s respect other people’s opinions in the legal sphere, and they’ll learn to respect ours.To advocate and condone gay marriage is also to advocate and condone homosexuality and sodomy as being normal. As a Catholic, you can’t do this. It is your duty to oppose the very concept. As a member of a Western Judeo-Christian society, founded on Natural Law principles, which the Catholic Church upholds, you should be denying the rights of gays to change the meaning of one of societiy’s most important institutions. It is an institution that gave firm foundation to the very society you live in. We all know full well, that the gay rights issue involves far more than simple non-discrimination. It involves making equal that which can never be equal and normalising that which is way outside the norms of society.
S
sw85
Guest
Can I ask what the rigidly rational and secular argument is for civil marriage in the first place?
D
DeejaySpaniel
Guest
Because its not about religion. Its about the love that one person has for another.
S
sequoyagurl988
Guest
The reason it’s never been an issue before (as far as we’re aware) is that governments haven’t always been involved in marriage, Catholic or otherwise.
I’m not debating whether gay marriage is good or bad. I’m arguing that it isn’t the government’s place to decide, it’s the place of the institution where the ACTUAL marriage happens, whether it’s a Catholic church or a Muslim mosque. As Catholics, we already believe that legal marriages are nothing more than paperwork, and many other religions hold a similar view. To us, “marriage” is just a word unless it is administered in the Church, adheres to Church guidelines, and is witnessed by a priest/deacon. The Catholic Church doesn’t officially recognize a marriage between two gay people any more than it recognizes one between two atheists or even two Protestants, and it shouldn’t be required to.
But allowing the government to make major decisions about its citizens’ personal lives is a bad precedent to set. If the government can place a major restriction on such a deeply personal life choice as marriage, that establishes a precedent for future interference on similarly personal issues. If the restriction coincides with Catholicism on this issue, it might not on the next. That’s what I’m getting at.
I’m not debating whether gay marriage is good or bad. I’m arguing that it isn’t the government’s place to decide, it’s the place of the institution where the ACTUAL marriage happens, whether it’s a Catholic church or a Muslim mosque. As Catholics, we already believe that legal marriages are nothing more than paperwork, and many other religions hold a similar view. To us, “marriage” is just a word unless it is administered in the Church, adheres to Church guidelines, and is witnessed by a priest/deacon. The Catholic Church doesn’t officially recognize a marriage between two gay people any more than it recognizes one between two atheists or even two Protestants, and it shouldn’t be required to.
But allowing the government to make major decisions about its citizens’ personal lives is a bad precedent to set. If the government can place a major restriction on such a deeply personal life choice as marriage, that establishes a precedent for future interference on similarly personal issues. If the restriction coincides with Catholicism on this issue, it might not on the next. That’s what I’m getting at.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Can you find a statute concerning marriage that mentions love? Anywhere? Is it illegal to marry someone whom you don’t love? How does the state determine that you are in love? Does this mean that marriages of convenience are illegal?
The idea that civil marriage is about love is romantic, but it is not factual. Society does not reserve marriage for people who are in love, and being in love is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for marriage.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
It is not illegal to have a marriage ceremony between same sex partners. It is not illegal to have a marriage ceremony between poodles, for crying out loud. Neither is there any penalty, as there once was, for unmarried couples to engage in sexual consort. Therefore, the government isn’t “making a major decision”.
The government does recognize certain unions as being something that society might wish to support or regulate out of self-interest. The state differentiates between homosexual and heterosexual unions, just as it differentiates between unions of close relatives and unrelated people, because the distinction is not arbitrary, but rather is substantial, with regards to the question of producing and rearing children.
Even if the US were to go the direction of countries like Monaco, where the civil and religious weddings were separate, that does not mean that society has no interest in what unions are recognized as marriages for the purpose of gaining a legally-recognized framework.
E
Eugenius
Guest
Heterosexual couples adopt other people’s children every day. Are you saying this is screwy?
Also, children obviously have a biological father and mother somewhere, being raised by someone else does not change that biological fact.
E
Eugenius
Guest
Is the part about not recognizing atheist and Protestant marriage accurate?
J
John21652
Guest
- Status