Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RevDon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Sexual intercourse is by nature a conjugal action. It belongs in a conjugal relationship. When it takes place outside of marriage, through fornication or adultery, it is disordered. And when those disordered actions generate new life, the result is often abortion, or fatherless children, and poverty. That’s why marital intercourse belongs within a marital bond. That’s why we have a national average 40% out of wedlock pregnancy rate.

Sexual complementarity may extend to the psychological and emotional and the spiritual, but it begins with biology—XX and XY chromosomes. Male and female. Men and women. The design has a purpose. Of course we are more than our ability to procreate, but marriage is the institution in which procreation occurs and families are formed.

All love is not conjugal love, nor should it be. But conjugal love requires sexual complemtarity.
 
JimG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Precisely true. People have got to understand that “changes” within the Church were aided and abetted by it. The 1960s and '70s were the “golden age” for Catholic dissidents.

Had this Revolution been a private matter (living together without marriage and having sex, use of illegal drugs which was just part of “the scene,” renouncing and vilifying authority figures - “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” - so mom, dad, priests, nuns, they don’t know anything), then the problem may have allowed us faithful Catholics who were there to avoid it, but it was gradually shoved into our face, first by Adult Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars - which led to the planned addiction problems for men. And all that cost millions of dollars to set up. All of that was protected from protesting ‘religious nuts’ by high-priced lawyers who said they had the First Amendment right to do all this! In 1968, the worst you could do was Playboy, but no, they wanted to make private sexual intimacy public and in your face.

And who asked for it? Catholics?

1973 Abortion is legalized through lies and deceptions in the most irrational Supreme Court decision I had ever seen. It was NOT the will of the people.

And women who wanted the family destroyed kept yelling that men were the devil and the family was called a “comfortable concentration camp” (Betty Friedan). The National Organization for Women created fear, doubt and anger toward all men, now labeled “male chauvenist pigs.” Got that? Was this a Catholic idea?

But all that fear and “all women are the victims of all men” would create fertile ground for the 1980s and “No-Fault Divorce.” Suddenly, lawyers - not the people - turned the sanctity of marriage into a disposable contract. A Catholic idea?

And the media just got worse and worse and more and more immoral starting in the 70’s, then more bad in the 80’s, and more bad in the 90’s. And the movies? Same thing. A Catholic idea?

Now sex has been reduced to “just sex” like using a toilet.

The Body of Christ has been gradually poisoned but it took 40 years because if we had gone from Leave it to Beaver to Two and Half Men overnight, I guarantee there would have been a massive public outcry. But the sexual deviants and perverts knew that.

Have hope, especially women. The problem and solution have been clearly identified.

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610

We cannot be conformed to the culture. That has to end.

God have mercy,
Ed
 
JimG said:
Exactly. Sexual intercourse is by nature a conjugal action. It belongs in a conjugal relationship. When it takes place outside of marriage, through fornication or adultery, it is disordered. And when those disordered actions generate new life, the result is often abortion, or fatherless children, and poverty. That’s why marital intercourse belongs within a marital bond. That’s why we have a national average 40% out of wedlock pregnancy rate.

Sexual complementarity may extend to the psychological and emotional and the spiritual, but it begins with biology—XX and XY chromosomes. Male and female. Men and women. The design has a purpose. Of course we are more than our ability to procreate, but marriage is the institution in which procreation occurs and families are formed.

All love is not conjugal love, nor should it be. But conjugal love requires sexual complemtarity.
Click to expand...
I’m getting bored of the physical parts argument. (My boredom doesn’t mean that it’s not important to your argument, just that I have replied to it so often that it’s getting tedious.)
I’m also tired of the procreation argument.

The current definition of “conjugal” is “married.” So you are right. Married love, married sex requires marriage–by definition! Great!

Now, What pressing need of society would demand that by law two adults (who are probably having sex and exchanging love) cannot -under law- make that conjugal? By definition, if they are married, it’s conjugal. Marriage existed long before there was any knowledge of chromosomes. People did understand (in a non-chromosomal way) what a man was and what a woman was, ans society certainly had an interest in producing a new generation (especially to take care of the older generation). All of that is true, undisputed.
But, my argument is, since we have the power over language by authority and by common usage, and since we can imagine things different from the imagery of the present or the past, why can’t we as a society choose to apply the language of conjugal to the relationship of two persons of the same gender?
Is it hard to imagine? Of course!
Is it going to get some getting used to? Of course!
Is it beyond the capacity of humanity? I don’t think so.
Is there something good that can result from it? I think so.
Is there harm that can come from it? I can’t think of any.
Will some people be uncomfortable with it? Yes, just like people were (and some are) uncomfortable with mixed-race marriages, which were once pronounced by church (oops) and state as impossible, unnatural, evil.
 
RevDon said:
But, my argument is, since we have the power over language by authority and by common usage, and since we can imagine things different from the imagery of the present or the past, why can’t we as a society choose to apply the language of conjugal to the relationship of two persons of the same gender?
Click to expand...
Language doesn’t change reality.
Calling homosexuals gay, doesn’t change their reality
Calling sex, gender doesn’t change its reality.
Calling same-sex unions marriage, does not change the reality of marriage
 
RevDon said:
Yes, just like people were (and some are) uncomfortable with mixed-race marriages, which were once pronounced by church (oops) and state as impossible, unnatural, evil.
Click to expand...
This absolutely not true. Members of the hierarchy discouraged the practice but it was never part of the doctrine. But once the people in the Church, not the doctrine, got their heads on straight, bishops along with the rank and file even led the fight for the end of miscegenation laws here in the US.

This is not a matter of the people of the Church needing to come to a clearer understanding of the doctrine. This is a matter of this being explicitly not just what “some people think” or even “most people think” within the Church. It’s a matter of being quite literally on the books. It’s in the Catechism. There’s no wiggle room on whether it is licit or illicit.

There’s plenty of room to change our approach to converting the world to the Gospel. There is no room for changing the doctrine.
 
RevDon said:
I’m getting bored of the physical parts argument. (My boredom doesn’t mean that it’s not important to your argument, just that I have replied to it so often that it’s getting tedious.)
I’m also tired of the procreation argument.

The current definition of “conjugal” is “married.” So you are right. Married love, married sex requires marriage–by definition! Great!

Now, What pressing need of society would demand that by law two adults (who are probably having sex and exchanging love) cannot -under law- make that conjugal? By definition, if they are married, it’s conjugal. Marriage existed long before there was any knowledge of chromosomes. People did understand (in a non-chromosomal way) what a man was and what a woman was, ans society certainly had an interest in producing a new generation (especially to take care of the older generation). All of that is true, undisputed.
But, my argument is, since we have the power over language by authority and by common usage, and since we can imagine things different from the imagery of the present or the past, why can’t we as a society choose to apply the language of conjugal to the relationship of two persons of the same gender?
Is it hard to imagine? Of course!
Is it going to get some getting used to? Of course!
Is it beyond the capacity of humanity? I don’t think so.
Is there something good that can result from it? I think so.
Is there harm that can come from it? I can’t think of any.
Will some people be uncomfortable with it? Yes, just like people were (and some are) uncomfortable with mixed-race marriages, which were once pronounced by church (oops) and state as impossible, unnatural, evil.
Click to expand...
Of course you’re bored with the man-woman physical parts argument, because it’s just the way that men and women are made. It’s the natural reality. And reality can be boring. Something different might be more exciting.

Ah well, the same boredom can be invoked as reasons for adultery and fornication. But, as I’ve noted before, I think that those actions are disordered and have bad results. All disordered sexual desires have bad effects when acted upon. I would surmise that there is not a single human being alive who has not had a disordered sexual desire; but things work out best when we do not act upon them.

As for whether we can use our power over language to simply change the meaning of words, well, yes, we can try. But in doing so, we don’t change reality and only confuse meanings by trying to make different things seem similar. Orson Scott Card spent a good part of his essay talking about that, and I won’t repeat it here.
 
RevDon said:
But, my argument is, since we have the power over language by authority and by common usage, and since we can imagine things different from the imagery of the present or the past, why can’t we as a society choose to apply the language of conjugal to the relationship of two persons of the same gender?
Click to expand...
Of course societies can do this and they have done this.

They used language and “science” to explain why the white race was superior to all others. They called Jews sub-human and in need of extermination.

Today they call unborn children a “little mass of cells.”

We as societies can choose to deny reality and those denials can even be law. And denying that the law is real is a dangerous game. But that the law is real does not mean that it is not also unjust and even evil. Abortion is legal. This is a certifiable fact. It’s also a certifiable fact that it results in the killing of an unborn child. Forced slavery used to be legal. That’s a historical fact. It’s also a fact that forced slavery is an abomination before God and a capital offense against the TRUTH that all people are loved by God equally.

Truth is Truth even if we are all liars and come to unanimous agreement that our lies are truth.
 
edwest2 said:
Sorry, RevDon. I will no longer be replying to your posts.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
That’s O.K., Ed.
You don’t have to reply to me.
You wrote:
**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.**This makes me think that you have in mind a direction that this string can go that can easily bring clarity to the question. For the sake of others who are interested, please share that plan.
 
JimG said:
“Love, sex, and marriage have consequences and meaning. I fear that the results of this latest social experiment will be seen in the next generation, and then God help us. Sincerely, God help us.”
–Michael Coren writing about Great Britain and Gay Marriage

catholicworldreport.com/Item/2011/great_britain_and_gay_marriage.aspx
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have stumbled on something very importabt to this discussion. The article you linked says:
**Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting marriage itself. The term “common-law marriage” says it all. Marriage is many things but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience have replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, have been lowered. **

I could agree with that observation. How can people of good will steer society to a better course?
Maybe we are being presented with a means to define marriage using a fresh canvas: the marriage of same sex persons. That has certainly got people thinking and talking about what marriage is or should be in a way that has probably never happened before.
It would be a mistake to think that the conversation is over. But as long as it is ongoing, things will be unsettled and messy.
 
RevDon said:
That’s O.K., Ed.
You don’t have to reply to me.
You wrote:
**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.**This makes me think that you have in mind a direction that this string can go that can easily bring clarity to the question. For the sake of others who are interested, please share that plan.
Click to expand...
Same sex unions are not marriage. They never have been in the history of man. YOU claim we need to move to a “better new” way. It is YOU that wants to lead us. That means it has to be YOUR plan. You need to lead the communication.

I knew you would never provide a plan. No one on your side of the argument has ever led. They just ridicule. They just throw their tantrum.
 
The_Bucket said:
This absolutely not true. Members of the hierarchy discouraged the practice but it was never part of the doctrine. But once the people in the Church, not the doctrine, got their heads on straight, bishops along with the rank and file even led the fight for the end of miscegenation laws here in the US.

This is not a matter of the people of the Church needing to come to a clearer understanding of the doctrine. This is a matter of this being explicitly not just what “some people think” or even “most people think” within the Church. It’s a matter of being quite literally on the books. It’s in the Catechism. There’s no wiggle room on whether it is licit or illicit.

There’s plenty of room to change our approach to converting the world to the Gospel. There is no room for changing the doctrine.
Click to expand...
Would you be able to tell what was the opinion of your bishop from what is doctrine? Perhaps in this age of information, but not in the years when that issue was of concern. People accepted what their bishops said as “gospel.” Those were the good old days before most people even thought about questioning.
 
RevDon said:
Maybe we are being presented with a means to define marriage using a fresh canvas: the marriage of same sex persons. That has certainly got people thinking and talking about what marriage is or should be in a way that has probably never happened before.
It would be a mistake to think that the conversation is over. .
Click to expand...
Yes, give us a new rock solid definition of marriage and then lead us to the conclusion you have come to already.

You talk about your new idea but you don’t want to lead the conversation to your new definition of marriage. Do you honestly want a conversation?
 
The_Bucket said:
This absolutely not true. Members of the hierarchy discouraged the practice but it was never part of the doctrine. But once the people in the Church, not the doctrine, got their heads on straight, bishops along with the rank and file even led the fight for the end of miscegenation laws here in the US.

This is not a matter of the people of the Church needing to come to a clearer understanding of the doctrine. This is a matter of this being explicitly not just what “some people think” or even “most people think” within the Church. It’s a matter of being quite literally on the books. It’s in the Catechism. There’s no wiggle room on whether it is licit or illicit.

There’s plenty of room to change our approach to converting the world to the Gospel. There is no room for changing the doctrine.
Click to expand...
The mix-race marriage issue was about eugenics, something the Catholic Church has always been against.

As you see there are people who hate the Catholic Church and what it stands for and they will say anything. I hope you see why many of us here don’t take a nice guy approach to people who support the idea that same sex unions are marriage. You might visit a few homosexual agenda websites and see the hate they have for the Church.
 
The_Bucket said:
This absolutely not true. Members of the hierarchy discouraged the practice but it was never part of the doctrine. But once the people in the Church, not the doctrine, got their heads on straight, bishops along with the rank and file even led the fight for the end of miscegenation laws here in the US.

This is not a matter of the people of the Church needing to come to a clearer understanding of the doctrine. This is a matter of this being explicitly not just what “some people think” or even “most people think” within the Church. It’s a matter of being quite literally on the books. It’s in the Catechism. There’s no wiggle room on whether it is licit or illicit.

There’s plenty of room to change our approach to converting the world to the Gospel. There is no room for changing the doctrine.
Click to expand...
David W. Southern, Cotton Professor of History
Westminster College, Fulton Missouri

“After requesting church funds for the Catholic Interracial Council of New York (CICNY) in the late 1930s, Father John LaFarge, the foremost Catholic integrationist in the first half of the twentieth century, found he had to justify his plea before James Francis Mclntyre, the much-feared **chancellor of the archdiocese of New York, **A mean-spirited and authoritarian bishop, Mclntyre had earlier warned the CICNY that church work among African Americans should stress religious conversion rather than social and economic reform. Even though Mclntyre’s conservative attitude was known, LaFarge was startled when the bishop unexpectedly punctuated their meeting by accusing him of advocating interracial marriage.”

This wasn’t doctrine, but clerics in high places supported it, and what could the Catholic-in-the pew do?
 
JimG said:
There was no occasion for him to condemn homosexual marriage because it was already condemned and nobody was disputing it. Or rather, homosexual acts were condemned, and so the issue of ‘marriage’ was not even a possibility.

Indeed, it was not even a possibility in societies which did not condemn homosexual acts. Some societies tolerated nearly any kind of sexual liaisons but only recognized marriage as between men and women, since such marital unions had the capacity to, and did, ensure the continuance of society. Even non-Christian, and non-Jewish societies recognized that same sex unions could never be marital.
Click to expand...
Of course,m even the Greeks who widely practiced pederasty had their standards. Alcibides, a bright student of Socrates, shocked convention when he took a lover his own age.
 
RevDon said:
David W. Southern, Cotton Professor of History
Westminster College, Fulton Missouri

“After requesting church funds for the Catholic Interracial Council of New York (CICNY) in the late 1930s, Father John LaFarge, the foremost Catholic integrationist in the first half of the twentieth century, found he had to justify his plea before James Francis Mclntyre, the much-feared **chancellor of the archdiocese of New York, **A mean-spirited and authoritarian bishop, Mclntyre had earlier warned the CICNY that church work among African Americans should stress religious conversion rather than social and economic reform. Even though Mclntyre’s conservative attitude was known, LaFarge was startled when the bishop unexpectedly punctuated their meeting by accusing him of advocating interracial marriage.”

This wasn’t doctrine, but clerics in high places supported it, and what could the Catholic-in-the pew do?
Click to expand...
Well, the Irish were notorious for their bigoted attitudes toward blacks. And the Archbishop let himself be a man of his time and place. Happened many times in the history of the Church that clerics and even saints were bigots. I recall Christmas, 1954, going to mass in New Orleans. I went up and kneeled at the altar rail, and as a i did I noticed that a communicant to my side was black. Thought nothing of it, till I saw the Priest hesitate before giving me communion. “How odd,” I thought. Then i looked and saw I had accidentally kneed in the “colored “ section. Weird.
 
I don’t believe that gay people choose to be gay. They are born that way. The feelings and affections are real. It seems that a statistically constant part of the population is gay. If that’s the case then it’s part of the natural order and therefore a part God’s Plan. I haven’t figured out what part that is and maybe nobody has yet. Don’t forget it took us over 1500 years to figure out slavery was not a part of His plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top