Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[RevDon]

Posted by Ed West # 361

My worldview is informed more by religion than anything else. With all due respect, I do not live in a secular world.

Do you live in Vatican City? Chances are you live in a secular worle in which you may live by religious values
I know some who want me to think that but it’s simply not true. The majority of the people in this country hold to some religious belief, our coins have In God We Trust on them.

Then we need no military, do we?

However, the idea that secularization has come to America is simply a promotion campaign, and for what benefit? Like the photo I saw in a newsweekly magazine showing a man with a placard that read: “America! Get off your knees!” or a non-book review on amazon.com that read: “Keep your Bible out of my government.” or the idea that we can be “Good without God.” Good based on what?

The notion of what constitutes a good life vastly pre-dates Christianity and continues in many different cultures. Religion wrestles with that in every permutation.

We should work to our mutual benefit but without agreed upon goals and principles, some tend to either (A) ignore (name removed by moderator)ut from religious people, or (B) become individualists all running off in different directions.

Yes, that does happen.

The Holy Father says:

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

Commentary by the practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

**Communication is not easy, as we have discovered on this web site. The realities of life are complicated and nuanced. For that reason, communication can occur only through a long process of attempting dialogue based on good will. **

 

[edwest2]

The Cult of Change represents a tiny but vocal subculture. Based on my research, it creates the illusion of modernity. It doesn’t define anything. We have more information now but it’s very poorly organized and on too many internet forums, it boils down to people blathering on with zero supporting evidence. Instead of a “pure as snow” concept, people need to realize the internet is a means to spread false information and to promote the agenda of sub-cultures. Too much of it bad.

As a media professional and professional researcher, I’m starting to see sloppiness and inappropriate material in business publications. All in the name of the same fake “freedom” dating from 1968.

People need to understand that the only secular “sin” is boredom. Being awash in a sea of change (real or imagined) is the antidote. The problem is, most of the proposed changes are either old, as opposed to modern, or just plain bad. For a society to function, there needs to be a bedrock set of rules and standards.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Posted by Ed West # 361

My worldview is informed more by religion than anything else. With all due respect, I do not live in a secular world.

Do you live in Vatican City? Chances are you live in a secular worle in which you may live by religious values
I know some who want me to think that but it’s simply not true. The majority of the people in this country hold to some religious belief, our coins have In God We Trust on them.

Then we need no military, do we?

However, the idea that secularization has come to America is simply a promotion campaign, and for what benefit? Like the photo I saw in a newsweekly magazine showing a man with a placard that read: “America! Get off your knees!” or a non-book review on amazon.com that read: “Keep your Bible out of my government.” or the idea that we can be “Good without God.” Good based on what?

The notion of what constitutes a good life vastly pre-dates Christianity and continues in many different cultures. Religion wrestles with that in every permutation.

We should work to our mutual benefit but without agreed upon goals and principles, some tend to either (A) ignore (name removed by moderator)ut from religious people, or (B) become individualists all running off in different directions.

Yes, that does happen.

The Holy Father says:

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

Commentary by the practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

**Communication is not easy, as we have discovered on this web site. The realities of life are complicated and nuanced. For that reason, communication can occur only through a long process of attempting dialogue based on good will. **

I have to disagree with that last part. As a media professional, I follow trends that includes beliefs, and actions of people in society based on choices that are engineered to be the most appealing but which are usually bad for individuals and society at large. I have personally witnessed the gradual degradation of Western society over the last 40 years. And its primary source has been the manipulation or purposed use of the media by skilled propagandists.

Communication can only occur…? You really don’t know the broad picture. I have been following or directly involved with the movie industry, the comic book industry, the fashion dictatorship and various political groups and subculture fanatics.

There are simple answers, but the problem here, too often, is that people only want affirmations and approval. As a working professional, it is not my job to offer “opinions” which are worthless, but balanced data to my boss. The same holds for my religious beliefs. You may not agree with them, and that’s your choice, but they are not solely based on “because God said so.”

I refuse to tell people “only what they want to hear.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[RevDon]

It would seem that Western society has been quite open to new ideas, embracing first contraception, which decoupled marriage from children and led to no fault divorce and abortion, then increased promiscuity, cohabitation, fatherless children, abandoned mothers, the call for yet more abortion, and a society in which stable families are legal but rare, and no longer safe. The results of embracing the new ideas have been summarized in Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” which I highly recommend. The civilizational landscape has been left devastated. And yet we ask for more of the same.

No doubt about it, some pretty bad things are happening. I suspect some of this has been happening as long as human beings have been on this planet.

Are you responding to say that all new ideas are bad and we should never accept them?

 

[Stephen168]

What if Alaska were to say, you come from New Jersey. You can never be a citizen of Alaska and have the benefits from our oil deposits?

Seems like a false analogy

What if Alaska was to only distributed the benefits of the oil deposits to native born Alaskans?
Then you would have people who wanted those benefits trying to redefine “native.”

 

[RevDon]

I have to disagree with that last part. As a media professional, I follow trends that includes beliefs, and actions of people in society based on choices that are engineered to be the most appealing but which are usually bad for individuals and society at large. I have personally witnessed the gradual degradation of Western society over the last 40 years. And its primary source has been the manipulation or purposed use of the media by skilled propagandists.

Communication can only occur…? You really don’t know the broad picture. I have been following or directly involved with the movie industry, the comic book industry, the fashion dictatorship and various political groups and subculture fanatics.

There are simple answers, but the problem here, too often, is that people only want affirmations and approval. As a working professional, it is not my job to offer “opinions” which are worthless, but balanced data to my boss. The same holds for my religious beliefs. You may not agree with them, and that’s your choice, but they are not solely based on “because God said so.”

I refuse to tell people “only what they want to hear.”

Peace,
Ed

Perhaps I should have said, quality communication or productive communication.

I suppose the balanced data you offer your boss in your profession is based on empirical evidence. Religious conclusions include much that is not empirical, yet equally true. How we get at that truth is the question. There was a time when most human beings let somebody else tell them what was true. That made things a lot easier, since you only had to listen to one voice. People wrongly characterize the Catholic Church as a holdover of this methodology. The Pope may speak, but only once has he invoked this authority. Usually there is consultation, study, conversation before a decision is issued.

That’s my point. To get to quality decisions, human beings in society need conversation, consultation, study. Skills at listening are as important as skills at speaking.

 

[Stephen168]

That’s my point. To get to quality decisions, human beings in society need conversation, consultation, study. Skills at listening are as important as skills at speaking.

As to the subject of this thread it is only one sided. You speak, we are to listen and agree with you, but I think that is typical of people on your side of the argument.

 

[RevDon]

The Cult of Change represents a tiny but vocal subculture. Based on my research, it creates the illusion of modernity. It doesn’t define anything. We have more information now but it’s very poorly organized and on too many internet forums, it boils down to people blathering on with zero supporting evidence. Instead of a “pure as snow” concept, people need to realize the internet is a means to spread false information and to promote the agenda of sub-cultures. Too much of it bad.

As a media professional and professional researcher, I’m starting to see sloppiness and inappropriate material in business publications. All in the name of the same fake “freedom” dating from 1968.

People need to understand that the only secular “sin” is boredom. Being awash in a sea of change (real or imagined) is the antidote. The problem is, most of the proposed changes are either old, as opposed to modern, or just plain bad. For a society to function, there needs to be a bedrock set of rules and standards.

Peace,
Ed

You are rightly passionate about this and your background gives authority to your position. I think we agree, achieving good communication is not easy and modern culture, for all the information
at our disposal–true and false-- probably needs to work harder than ever, if for no other reason than to just sort through it all.
So, if truth is going to be achieved, and if it is going to be employed, the tiresome task of communication is the way. That means winning over people’s minds and hearts through the presentation of truth in such a way that the truth becomes apparent and applicable to all. It requires building a coinsensus vocabulary, otherwise people who use the same words might not mean the same things. It means demonstrating the actuality of examples and their significance to the discussion. It means patience and careful listening so mutual understanding can come from it.

 

[edwest2]

RevDon,

I think you are missing my point completely. We all grow up listening to somebody else, regardless of our beliefs or lack of a formal belief system. The problem is, some people want to construct a belief system that they imagine, in a fantasy world kind of way, emanates only from them.

In that case, no dialogue is possible, only radical individualism or a fantasy psychological construct that exists only in the minds of a particular subculture as being true and worthy of being spread as true for all. I saw it with the:

Hippies

Punk Rockers

Goths

Fine Artists (I recently learned that their twisted view of reality has survived, intact, from the 1970s to the present.)

And here’s the (almost) funny part. I engaged with these people and their bedrock belief was “we’re all different.” The reality part was that they all dressed and acted the same! But they could not see that.

You’re making this harder than it needs to be.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You are rightly passionate about this and your background gives authority to your position. I think we agree, achieving good communication is not easy and modern culture, for all the information
at our disposal–true and false-- probably needs to work harder than ever, if for no other reason than to just sort through it all.
So, if truth is going to be achieved, and if it is going to be employed, the tiresome task of communication is the way. That means winning over people’s minds and hearts through the presentation of truth in such a way that the truth becomes apparent and applicable to all. It requires building a coinsensus vocabulary, otherwise people who use the same words might not mean the same things. It means demonstrating the actuality of examples and their significance to the discussion. It means patience and careful listening so mutual understanding can come from it.

So set up the steps, right now, for this topic. You claim you want to get from point A to point B. Conflict resolution happens all the time. It’s not a new concept, but all I’m seeing is a lot of verbiage.

Draw a map or flow chart. You make it sound hard. I have been called in to solve complicated problems all the time and have to locate data very rapidly to arrive at a good, workable decision.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephen168]

You are rightly passionate about this and your background gives authority to your position. I think we agree, achieving good communication is not easy and modern culture, for all the information
at our disposal–true and false-- probably needs to work harder than ever, if for no other reason than to just sort through it all.
So, if truth is going to be achieved, and if it is going to be employed, the tiresome task of communication is the way. That means winning over people’s minds and hearts through the presentation of truth in such a way that the truth becomes apparent and applicable to all. It requires building a coinsensus vocabulary, otherwise people who use the same words might not mean the same things. It means demonstrating the actuality of examples and their significance to the discussion. It means patience and careful listening so mutual understanding can come from it.

In order to communicate, words and ideas have to have consistent meaning.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes human beings are mere animals.

Here you suggest humans are more than animals

Plenty of animal babies die for want of sufficient support.

Here you suggest humans are just animals.

You also have not defined what marriage is, yet that is what you want to communicate about.
Someone serious about communication would be more than willing to define the terms they are discussing.

 

[The_Bucket]

Are you responding to say that all new ideas are bad and we should never accept them?

I doubt he is and I most certainly am not. The idea that we as human beings really and truly are equal was quite the new concept when first expressed. Christianity was extremely radical in expressing that idea, even if it was not fully understood and put into practice for nearly two millenia.

Paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free person in his epistles. Yet the Church as an institution did not get behind the abolition of slavery for nearly 1800 years after he wrote that. In fact, people were converted by the sword and some in the hierarchy lauded expeditions that did this.

But the doctrine did not say this. The doctrine of the Church never said people outside of her walls were somehow subhuman. Only that they were not exposed to the fullness of the Truth and that only by acknowledging that Truth could they be saved. Our understanding and practice of this doctrine has gotten so much better over the centuries.

While I think we basically have no choice but to tolerate civil gay marriage the Church not only will not but cannot accept it. This is a case where the doctrine cannot be refined. It is what it is. The way we approach people to convert them to our cause and help them see the Truth needs to change, in my opinion. But the teaching itself will not and cannot.

All I’m saying is that our toleration of civil gay marriage will be like our toleration of abortion. That is we understand and accept that it is the law of the land but do not support it and will push to change the law. I do concede, however, that I do not see gay marriage as great an evil as abortion. Abortion is unwillful homicide at best (in the case where someone is pressured into it or is genuinely ignorant) and premeditated murder at worst.

 

[RevDon]

Yes we should support what is best for society. And that is to treat the institution of marriage in accordance with the nature of human beings, created male and female, as an institution ordered to sexual complementarity and the procreation of the next generation.

Every act of unimpeded marital intercourse is ordered to the generation of new life. Not every marital act results in conception, not even the majority. But the design and nature of man and woman ensures that if we act according to our nature, a new generation will ensue. Fertility of individuals is not an issue. Sexual complementarity is, and it is essential to marriage.

To deliberately act against our nature is wrong. To codify and institutionalize acting against our nature is worse. To call something marriage which as you note is “anatomically impossible” is simply a loss of reason. Same sex unions are not marital.

Aren’t unimpeded acts of pre-marital intercourse ordered to the generation of new life? How about extra-marital intercourse? If your argument is that it is the generation of new life that makes marital intercourse good, then what about these others? They generate new life, therefore they are good.

Is sexual complementarity decided only by how the little bits fit together? Isn’t there something in that argument that brings it down to a very animalistic level? Isn’t that just animal husbandry?

Defining what “our nature” actually is, is not as easy as showing what most human beings do, or have done. There is something spiritual (whether you mean that as religious or something else) that makes human beings essentially different from other creatures. We might be termed to be enfleshed spirits. Humans are equally defined by their understandings and their aspirations. The desire to love and to be loved is a “want,” but I would put it up there among the things that define a human being. Because we are enfleshed ONE of the ways we act on that is in sex, which does more than just procreate.

 

[RevDon]

I doubt he is and I most certainly am not. The idea that we as human beings really and truly are equal was quite the new concept when first expressed. Christianity was extremely radical in expressing that idea, even if it was not fully understood and put into practice for nearly two millenia.

Paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free person in his epistles. Yet the Church as an institution did not get behind the abolition of slavery for nearly 1800 years after he wrote that. In fact, people were converted by the sword and some in the hierarchy lauded expeditions that did this.

But the doctrine did not say this. The doctrine of the Church never said people outside of her walls were somehow subhuman.
** If there were not Papal documents that attest that the Church did hold this position (and I’m not saying that there are not) the practice of Catholics certainly was a proof that they held this belief.**Only that they were not exposed to the fullness of the Truth and that only by acknowledging that Truth could they be saved. Our understanding and practice of this doctrine has gotten so much better over the centuries.

While I think we basically have no choice but to tolerate civil gay marriage the Church not only will not but cannot accept it. This is a case where the doctrine cannot be refined. It is what it is. The way we approach people to convert them to our cause and help them see the Truth needs to change, in my opinion. But the teaching itself will not and cannot.
**On this, as on other teachings in history, it appears that the Church has painted herself into a corner. God has always given the Church the grace to correct herself, even if it sometimes means the messiness of walking over wet paint. To insist that the Church cannot do this is to say that the Holy Spirit may never speak a new word to the Church, or that even if the Spirit should speak, the Church cannot and will not listen. **

All I’m saying is that our toleration of civil gay marriage will be like our toleration of abortion. That is we understand and accept that it is the law of the land but do not support it and will push to change the law. I do concede, however, that I do not see gay marriage as great an evil as abortion. Abortion is unwillful homicide at best (in the case where someone is pressured into it or is genuinely ignorant) and premeditated murder at worst.

**On this we agree./**QUOTE]

 

[Stephen168]

Aren’t unimpeded acts of pre-marital intercourse ordered to the generation of new life? How about extra-marital intercourse? If your argument is that it is the generation of new life that makes marital intercourse good, then what about these others? They generate new life, therefore they are good.

It takes two to raise the new life; that is marriage. Creating and raising new life. It is why we have historically frowned upon pre-marital and extra -marital sex; it take two to raise a child.

 

[edwest2]

RevDon,

Why the Church this and the Church that? What DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE WORD CIVIL?

You think this is just a Catholic thing? I’m starting to suspect that this is a one-sided argument only. A one-way street with only ONE possible answer. If so, please say so.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

And this from people who are not likely to quote Jesus. No disrespect intended toward our Jewish neighbors.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephen168]

Is sexual complementarity decided only by how the little bits fit together? Isn’t there something in that argument that brings it down to a very animalistic level? Isn’t that just animal husbandry?

Yes complementarity starts with having the bits fit together and continues thru raising the child.

Only human beings can produce more children than a mother is able to rear.
RevDon;10412633:

Plenty of animal babies die for want of sufficient support.

It seems that depending on the situation you think the human should die. Do you really think humans are more than animals?

 

[JimG]

No doubt about it, some pretty bad things are happening. I suspect some of this has been happening as long as human beings have been on this planet.

Are you responding to say that all new ideas are bad and we should never accept them?

Not at all. But I am saying that accepting and promoting bad ideas has bad effects for individuals, for families, and for society. I referred to Mary Eberstadt’s book which gives voluminous documentation of some of the bad effects of the sexual revolution, which many persist in seeing as a good thing even as its bad effects drag down our culture toward destruction.

 

[RevDon]

So set up the steps, right now, for this topic. You claim you want to get from point A to point B. Conflict resolution happens all the time. It’s not a new concept, but all I’m seeing is a lot of verbiage.

Draw a map or flow chart. You make it sound hard. I have been called in to solve complicated problems all the time and have to locate data very rapidly to arrive at a good, workable decision.

Peace,
Ed

Lead on!

 

[RevDon]

RevDon,

Why the Church this and the Church that? What DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE WORD CIVIL?

You think this is just a Catholic thing? I’m starting to suspect that this is a one-sided argument only. A one-way street with only ONE possible answer. If so, please say so.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

And this from people who are not likely to quote Jesus. No disrespect intended toward our Jewish neighbors.

Peace,
Ed

You’re right again, Ed. I slipped as Bucket brought up Paul.
I think I commented earlier on the article you linked.
Not sure what you mean by
" I’m starting to suspect that this is a one-sided argument only. A one-way street with only ONE possible answer. If so, please say so."
See? Communication is hard.