Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JuanTomas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not true at all.
 
RevDon said:
What part of that statement do you feel is false? What evidence to the contrary can you give to support your conclusion?
Click to expand...
SSA is not ordained by God. That is known through Scripture, Tradition, reason, faith, and common sense.

Slavery is a broad term that is rarely used correctly. Chattel slavery is always evil. Not all slavery is chattel slavery. The Church did not teach chattel slavery was morally licit.
 
fix said:
SSA is not ordained by God. That is known through Scripture, Tradition, reason, faith, and common sense.

Slavery is a broad term that is rarely used correctly. Chattel slavery is always evil. Not all slavery is chattel slavery. The Church did not teach chattel slavery was morally licit.
Click to expand...
Could you provide some specific documentary evidence for these assertions that we might examine?
 
Stephen168 said:
lead on
Click to expand...
In any meaningful academic discussion it is customary for persons making an assertion to supply evidence why that assertion should be accepted as useful to the conversation. This evidence might include documentary proof for the truth of the statement or show how the statement proceeds logically from other ideas that have beer verified as truth.

For example, My assertion concerning the Catholic Church’s attitude toward mixed-race marriages was challenged, and I provided documentary proof of the attitudes of the chancellor and archbishop of New York, not just in their peivate opinions but in their official roles.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Then others may comment on the value of that proof and the validity of the assertion as it applies to the subject under consideration.

A common fallacy is the application of the universal or absolute to arguments when the evidence only proves that the point being made is true in some (even most) cases. A critic can disprove the universality of the claim by showing only one instance to the contrary.

The above are some of the “rules” by which serious discourse is conducted. That process is not served by continuous repetition of unsubstantiated assertions. Nor is it served by ignoring the challenges to the validity of one’s assertions.

As I wrote earlier, a serious discussion to arrive at truth can be a tedious undertaking, beginning with the careful definition of precisely what is being discussed. The groundwork for such a conversation depends on agreement on that definition. Once that agreement has been established, then the conversation about that subject may proceed pro and con.

It seemed to me that there were those on this string who might have felt I was in some way dominating the conversation, and I don’t want to do that. When Ed seemed to offer his experience in problem solving as leadership in guiding this conversation, I wrote “lead on.”
 
I might also add that the conversation needs to be limited to agreed-upon parameters. This conversation has often strayed from what was supposed to be a secular perspective into religious opinions. I have been guilty of that, and have been caught on it several times.
 
RevDon said:
In any meaningful academic discussion it is customary for persons making an assertion to supply evidence why that assertion should be accepted as useful to the conversation.
Click to expand...
I agree. Lead on
Stephen168 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
RevDon said:
For example, My assertion concerning the Catholic Church’s attitude toward mixed-race marriages was challenged, and I provided documentary proof of the attitudes of the chancellor and archbishop of New York.
Click to expand...
Rev, while you certainly showed that there were bigoted members of the clergy, you did not show anything as it pertained to the doctrine. The actual doctrine of the Church said nothing about mixed-race marriages. Even if everyone was discouraging them, that wouldn’t change what the doctrine itself said. It was silent on the matter of race.

So if you want to argue that the Church never pushed for mixed-race marriages until the modern era, I’d agree. If you want to say that various members of the Church in the past heavily discouraged mixed-race marriages, I’d agree. I would never agree that such a stance was in the doctrine because it wasn’t.
A common fallacy is the application of the universal or absolute to arguments when the evidence only proves that the point being made is true in some (even most) cases. A critic can disprove the universality of the claim by showing only one instance to the contrary.
Click to expand...
True as this is when it comes to arguing logic, it doesn’t work when we’re talking cross-purposes. We’re saying that it’s black and white in the Church doctrine that marriage is something between two people of the opposite sex. The doctrine has been silent on the matter of race; the only area where there is broad discourse is on inter-religious marriage and even then that’s acceptable provided there are the appropriate dispensations.

There is no broad discourse on homosexual marriage and the Church is not silent on the matter. If homosexual acts in and of themselves are gravely sinful, it stands to reason that homosexual marriage is not licit. Remember, sexual acts between heterosexuals in and of themselves are not sinful at all. It’s when those acts are conducted outside of marriage that they become sinful.

Context matters when it comes to heterosexual acts. Context does not matter when it comes to homosexual acts.
 
From the Church’s perspective, why should it tolerate sin even if we are not the ones sinning? That’s like saying we should tolerate murder in our society, just so long as we’re not the ones doing the murdering.

I fully concede that I’m going to have no choice in the matter in terms of acknowledging gay marriage as a legal fact. And I see it as a far lesser evil than abortion, because people are being killed and consciences are being shredded when it comes to abortion. Being that I’m just one guy, I’ll focus my efforts more on the matter of abortion.

I see value in society’s toleration of homosexuals. No one should live in fear of violence, discrimination or human judgment. But encouraging people to not live in fear is not the same as endorsing their actions.

I’m not going to celebrate single parenthood. But I’m also not going to stand from my parapet and call single mothers cruel names. No. I’m going to encourage unmarried pregnant women to bring their children into the world and rejoice in those lives. That’s not the same as condoning the actions that resulted in the children’s conceptions.

The same goes for homosexuals. I’m guilty of plenty of my own sin and I don’t see any value in saying things like “stop trying to force you militant gay-homo agenda on me!” Compassion and love is what is needed to bring these people who are so far from God’s love in one part of their lives into full communion with Him. There’s potentially plenty of virtue outside of the sexual realm that I can learn from them too!

But while I’m for respect and compassion, at the same time I’m not going to also be cool with stamping legitimacy onto unions that are inherently sinful.
 
The_Bucket said:
Rev, while you certainly showed that there were bigoted members of the clergy, you did not show anything as it pertained to the doctrine. The actual doctrine of the Church said nothing about mixed-race marriages. Even if everyone was discouraging them, that wouldn’t change what the doctrine itself said. It was silent on the matter of race.

So if you want to argue that the Church never pushed for mixed-race marriages until the modern era, I’d agree. If you want to say that various members of the Church in the past heavily discouraged mixed-race marriages, I’d agree. I would never agree that such a stance was in the doctrine because it wasn’t.

True as this is when it comes to arguing logic, it doesn’t work when we’re talking cross-purposes. We’re saying that it’s black and white in the Church doctrine that marriage is something between two people of the opposite sex. The doctrine has been silent on the matter of race; the only area where there is broad discourse is on inter-religious marriage and even then that’s acceptable provided there are the appropriate dispensations.

There is no broad discourse on homosexual marriage and the Church is not silent on the matter. If homosexual acts in and of themselves are gravely sinful, it stands to reason that homosexual marriage is not licit. Remember, sexual acts between heterosexuals in and of themselves are not sinful at all. It’s when those acts are conducted outside of marriage that they become sinful.

Context matters when it comes to heterosexual acts. Context does not matter when it comes to homosexual acts.
Click to expand...
Yes, the mixed-race concern is a rabbit trail.

When you write “Context matters when it comes to heterosexual acts. Context does not matter when it comes to homosexual acts.” I assume you are being ironic. All meaning is derived from context.

The question proceeds backward thus:
  1. The Catholic church condemns homosexual acts.
    a. Of their very nature as unnatural
    b. Because they occur outside marriage
    c. because of passages of scripture found in the Bible
    d. because of long-standing tradition
  2. The Catholic Church defines marriage as between one man and one woman
    a. because of passages of scripture found in the Bible
    b. because of long-standing tradition
  3. Note the context: This argument does not address Civil policy and does not use non-religious data as evidence.
Anybody have any objections so far?

Incidentally, I find a contradiction in this statement:
"There is no broad discourse on homosexual marriage and the Church is not silent on the matter. If homosexual acts in and of themselves are gravely sinful, it stands to reason that homosexual marriage is not licit. Remember, sexual acts between heterosexuals in and of themselves are not sinful at all. It’s when those acts are conducted outside of marriage that they become sinful.
 
RevDon said:
Yes, the mixed-race concern nis a rabbit trail.

When you write “Context matters when it comes to heterosexual acts. Context does not matter when it comes to homosexual acts.” I assume you are being ironic. All meaning is derived from context.
The question proceeds backward thus"
  1. The Catholic church condemns homosexual acts.
    a. Of their very nature as unnatural
    b. Because they occur outside marriage
    c. because of passages of scripture found in the Bible
    d. because of long-standing tradition
  2. The Catholic Church defines marriage as between one man and one woman
    a. because of passages of scripture found in the Bible
    b. because of long-standing tradition
Anybody have any objections so far?
Click to expand...
Yes, We are talking about civil marriage. What is your definition of marriage?
 
No. I’m not being ironic and you know darn well what I mean.

Context matters in many cases as to whether something is a venial or mortal sin or if it is not sinful at all. If I kill someone out of self-defense, that’s not a sin. Sad, but not a mortal sin. If I murder someone, that’s a mortal sin. If I’m a 15-year-old girl pressured into an abortion by my parents, I’ve probably only committed a venial sin since there is no full consent of the will.

If I have sexual intercourse in marriage, that’s not a sin. If I have sexual intercourse outside of marriage and know that it is grave matter, I commit a mortal sin. If I have sexual intercourse outside of marriage and do not know it is grave matter, I commit probably venial sin since I lack full knowledge.

But certain actions are inherently sinful. Stealing is sinful. If I steal only a small amount or if I do it out of necessity, it’s probably only venial. But it’s still sinful. Masturbation is inherently sinful. But if I’m a young teen or a sex addict, it’s probably only venial because of a lack of consent of the will or immaturity. Homosexual acts are inherently sinful. Whether they are venial or mortal sins depends on conscience formation, consent of the will, etc. They are never not sinful or, in the case of marital relations, a good and holy thing.
 
Stephen168 said:
Yes, We are talking about civil marriage. What is your definition of marriage?
Click to expand...
It’s not mine, but I can work with it:
mar·riage

/ˈmarij/
Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
 
The_Bucket said:
No. I’m not being ironic and you know darn well what I mean.

Context matters in many cases as to whether something is a venial or mortal sin or if it is not sinful at all. If I kill someone out of self-defense, that’s not a sin. Sad, but not a mortal sin. If I murder someone, that’s a mortal sin. If I’m a 15-year-old girl pressured into an abortion by my parents, I’ve probably only committed a venial sin since there is no full consent of the will.

If I have sexual intercourse in marriage, that’s not a sin. If I have sexual intercourse outside of marriage and know that it is grave matter, I commit a mortal sin. If I have sexual intercourse outside of marriage and do not know it is grave matter, I commit probably venial sin since I lack full knowledge.

But certain actions are inherently sinful. Stealing is sinful. If I steal only a small amount or if I do it out of necessity, it’s probably only venial. But it’s still sinful. Masturbation is inherently sinful. But if I’m a young teen or a sex addict, it’s probably only venial because of a lack of consent of the will or immaturity. Homosexual acts are inherently sinful. Whether they are venial or mortal sins depends on conscience formation, consent of the will, etc. They are never not sinful or, in the case of marital relations, a good and holy thing.
Click to expand...
Everything you wrote indicates the importance of context. Thank you
 
Stephen168 said:
I would also add design.

By his creation, we know the creator. We are created male and female.
Click to expand...
Good point. I should have mentioned biology. What is so common these days is to ask for proof of what is self evident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top