Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
authentic democracy is possible only in a state ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.
Click to expand...
centesimus annus

This is where we are headed with so called gay marriage.
 
The_Bucket said:
Honestly, I think a huge reason for the demand of “sameness” comes from our pretty terrible history of treating people who are different from us with proper dignity.

That’s why we had Brown v. Board of Education. Separate was not equal.

Finding a way to treat people with equivalent dignity while acknowledging differences is a very difficult thing to do. It’s even tougher for the law to do since the law lacks empathy or any other emotion.
Click to expand...
I agree that people of all sorts have been treated terribly and understand the need to pursue equla rights. But the key word is “right”.
I do not have the right to be regarded the same as a woman, because well, I am not a woman.
 
clem456 said:
And I do agree that because people are treated poorly, they feel they need to pursue their rights agressively. But that doesn’t mean marriage should be devalued.
Click to expand...
People can secure their “rights” through all types of legal devices. Redefining marriage has a particular purpose. The affirmation is central to this desired change.
 
Linux said:
Given that there is a split between church and state, if we accept this, then we have no choice but to tolerate civil gay marriage. Just because something is wrong does not mean that it qualifies as illegal. Neither does tolerating that fact mean that we are accepting gay mariage as morally correct. Like you I don’t understand the problem.

We are here to help God change peoples souls by evangelising them. Making gay marriage illegal does no such thing.
Click to expand...
The Church is interested in all people not just Catholics or the Catholic form of marriage. Making legal what is impossible is unjust and does violence to the law.
 
po18guy said:
For the same reason that we oppose abortion. It is intrinsic evil, disordered behavior and destructive of the human souls that participate in it. We cannot love our neighbor if we -]tolerate/-] endorse his or her self-detrcutive behavior.
Click to expand...
How can you link pro-marriage to abortion. I think homosexuals deserve equal rights as heterosexuals
 
aprilfloyd said:
How can you link pro-marriage to abortion. I think homosexuals deserve equal rights as heterosexuals
Click to expand...
There is no right to faux marriage. It is like claiming you have a right to a square circle. No such thing exists.
 
Seeker1961 said:
I am refraining from returning the level of rudeness that you exhibit in your response to me. Signing “best” doesn’t erase that tone, sir.

United States civil law is not made based on the religious traditions of ANY faith. Religion has nothing to do with civil law. Civil law is based on the common good for all citizens-thus laws are made to prohibit crimes like murder, and theft. Those laws may sound similar to religious rules, but they are not the same.

There are citizens in America who are not Catholic, not Christian, not followers of any religious tradition at all-and they have the exact same rights as those who are Catholic, Christian and who do follow a religion.

What I have grown to understand is that if I want my rights protected, then I must stand up for the rights of others-even when their choices are very different from my own.
Click to expand...
I am sorry about my tone, But I am seeing false information being passed off here as valid.

We do not live in two Separate Countries: The Secular States of America or The Religious States of America.

A complete and total fiction is being passed off here and to society in general, that there are separate laws for the religious and non-religious. I have watched that fake idea grow.
(See The Agnostic Age by Paul Horwitz.)

We do not live in a “I’ll scratch your back so you can scratch mine.” society. I’ll defend other “choices” as long as they are based on reality, not fiction.

"George Washington summed up the importance of religion to the new nation with particular eloquence in his farewell address:
Code: 
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
So no, I won’t vote for anything that violates the following:

Of the following groups, which union is the only one that can produce the next generation of human beings?
  1. Male, male.
  2. Female, female.
  3. Male, female.
If anyone reading this doesn’t get that then there is nothing to talk about. Nothing rational, at least.

Sorry for my rudeness.

Ed
 
Seeker1961 said:
You’re still stuck on procreation. Yes, that is the Church’s view-all relations are to be procreative. Done and overdone-no need to continue to rehash it.

Society outside of the Catholic tradition no longer views marriage as only about procreation. It’s about the relationship between two consenting, unrelated adults. There are Christian churches that have adopted that definition as well, even though Catholics would consider those churches heretical.

Society outside of the Catholic tradition has the right to define marriage as it chooses. The Catholic Church has the right to define marriage as it chooses.
Click to expand...
I’m not stuck on procreation. I’m stuck on marital relations, which requires a man and woman. Same sex couples aren’t designed for it. That’s the fact. Every society in history knew that fact, because it’s unavoidable and obvious.
 
Jason_NC said:
“they do not interfere with how you live your life in private”

Catholics are doing that how? No one is making them do anything in their private lives, the Church simply believes they should not marry and that Governments should maintain laws to assure this doesn’t happen. No one is telling them they CAN’T make their own choice to live in sin while they engage in homosexual and homogenital activities.
Click to expand...
That is Discrimination and Bigotry - Homosexuals deserve equal rights with Heterosexuals
 
JimG said:
I’m not stuck on procreation. I’m stuck on marital relations, which requires a man and woman. Same sex couples aren’t designed for it. That’s the fact. Every society in history knew that fact, because it’s unavoidable and obvious.
Click to expand...
Not true. Every society has gay and lesbian people and many (e,g UK) are enacting laws to ensure they are not discriminated against and can marry. Just as we have laws to not discriminate against the color of a person’s skin.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Not true. Every society has gay and lesbian people and many (e,g UK) are enacting laws to ensure they are not discriminated against and can marry. Just as we have laws to not discriminate against the color of a person’s skin.
Click to expand...
Until this century, no society has enacted laws which recognized homosexual unions as the equivalent of marriage.

Should anyone be discriminated against when it comes to marriage? How about polygamists? Pederasts? Mothers and sons? Fathers and daughters? First Cousins? Felix and Oscar? Business Partners? Rommates who need the tax advantage? Teachers and students?
 
rossum said:
For the purposes of this thread we don’t actually need a definition that applies to “all cases”. For example, Moslem marriages between one man and four women are not relevant to this thread, and need not be included in whatever definition we agree to use, though they might be included.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would like an all inclusion definition for marriage. Do you have one?
 
Seeker1961 said:
Society outside of the Catholic tradition no longer views marriage as only about procreation. It’s about the relationship between two consenting, unrelated adults. There are Christian churches that have adopted that definition as well, even though Catholics would consider those churches heretical.

Society outside of the Catholic tradition has the right to define marriage as it chooses. The Catholic Church has the right to define marriage as it chooses.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the others, but we agree. I’m merely pointing out that civil marriage served a specific purpose. I really don’t know what purpose homosexual marriage serves.

For that matter, I don’t really know what purpose civil marriage in general serves anymore. If we’re going to divorce marriage from procreation, why bother having civil marriage? At this point, the couples who say “I don’t need a piece of paper to legitimize my relationship” are actually making a ton of sense. There is no real purpose for the state to recognize “two people in love,” especially when that contract can be broken for any reason and/or those two people are not really contributing anything unique to society the way married couples could contribute the next generation via their sexual congress.

To be frank, given where our culture is right now, I’d prefer the state not to recognize marriage at all. Just domestic partnerships. Leave the term “marriage” out completely.
 
The word “marriage” aside…
Is the union between a man and a woman something that needs to be defined? Or is it self evident, what it “is”. It seems a person is required to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top