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:
I think your “woman” example is pretty good, but I think there have been people born for whom gender is not clear. They are rare, but they exist and present people (at least their families) with some tough decisions.

Can you agree with the seven descriptors I posted as a beginning place to define just what we mean by that word marriage?
Would it be safe to say that a definition is neither morally wrong or morally right; it just is?
Click to expand...
No I disagree with the descriptors -as a definition-. but I agree they describe good qualities of a marriage. Marriage describes the union of a man and a woman according to civil and Church procedures.

A definition is not morally wrong, but it would be morally wrong in my view to work to against the affirmation of one man-one woman marriage.

I gotta go home. Good talking to youall.
 
RevDon said:
Stephen, you are getting to the place where your tone is offensive. It is not my duty to carry this conversation.
Click to expand...
I do have a little more patients with dishonest people than Ed does, but not much. When I asked for your definition of marriage, I excepted it to be a definition that you supported and were prepared to defend. As I have said before You want to lead us to a new and better understand, so yes it is your duty to honestly lead the conversation.
RevDon said:
I will say that my definition of marriage must include the following:
  1. between two people (no more than that)
  2. Participants must be mature
    3, Participants must freely enter into the relationship
  3. Participants must be monogamous
  4. Participants must intend a lifetime commitment
  5. Participants must treat each other with love and respect
There’s a start. Couldn’t you have offered that, Stephen? What do you think is missing–procreation? sex?
Click to expand...
Now that you have outlined the requirements for your definition, What is it? What is your definition of marriage? What is the purpose of marriage?
 
You “catholics,” in all of your false glory and uppity enlightened world view, you are not Catholic. I am ashamed to be the brother of those who say that a union between two homosexuals is acceptable, so long as it isn’t called marriage. Do you not love your neighbour? If you loved your neighbour, why would you allow him to commit grave sin? Why would you stand there and do nothing as he slaughters his own soul? Do you not realize that in a union, homosexuals will fornicate? Do you not realize this? Are you so obsessed with this world and its honours and excesses, that you have forgotten the one true mission that we have been engaging in for two thousand years - the salvation of souls? Why, oh why, would you let your brothers and sisters perish into the depths of perpetual sin and eternal damnation? You possess no mercy. You possess no love.

All you possess is cowardice. Spare me your pride, heathens. Spare me your relativistic, neo-pagan, modernist, liberal perspective. You do NOT do the work of God, but of the other. You make me sick. How dare you forsake your mission. How dare you let your brothers and sisters drown in the abyss of sin. How dare you! If only you could see me, if only you could see me in all of my fright, you would run in horror. How much more terror will be brought on by He who is waiting for you to stand up and fight in His Name, when all you do is flee. You cowards. You run from the battlefield and suck on your thumbs like the helpless infants that you are. Unborn children put up more of a fight than you do, you pathetic cowards. How much more willing they are to fight for God than you. How much stronger they are than you. How much braver they are than you. They are men, and you are babies. They are slaughtered each day and are stronger than you, and they would give anything for the chance at life that you have. How much greater of a job they would do than you. Die to this world already, cowards, and be reborn to the God of love and justice.

Go ahead, pansy moderator, deduct points and erase this message so that nobody can see it, because I was being mean and not being nice and tolerant and happy and warm and cheerful. Let the people perish in ignorance, for much is only expected from those who know the truth.
 
JimG said:
It’s not a big leap. You mentioned discrimination against gays when it comes to marriage. We discriminate against all those other groups as well. Close relatives are not allowed to marry , polygamists are not allowed to marry, pederasts are not allowed to marry, nor pedophiles. So it’s okay to discriminate on the basis of age, or blood relation, or number of partners, but not on the basis of the sex of the partner? Not only that, but as I’ve noted before, same sex partners have no capacity to engage in marital relations, thereby making the whole concept of ‘same sex marriage’ a contradiction.

Now, many things have changed throughout the course of history, as same sex marriage advocates keep pointing out. What has not changed is human biology, human nature, the fact of men and women, the fact of sexual complementarity, the need of children for mothers and fathers.

And no, it’s not welcomed, because it’s a sign that our society has lost its way, not recognizing reality, a sure sign that it is headed for the dustbin of history.
Click to expand...
If I am reading you correctly, it is not heterosexual marriage that leads to these other groups marrying - as we would have seen the evidence of that - so I am assuming you feel it is something intrinsic to homosexual marriage - Can you explain what it is.

We have always had homosexuality, why do you feel it is now a threat? As you say and I agree with you ‘human biology, human nature…’ have not changed. So what is your concern? I don’t see them changing.
 
CollegeStinks said:
You “catholics,” in all of your false glory and uppity enlightened world view, you are not Catholic. I am ashamed to be the brother of those who say that a union between two homosexuals is acceptable, so long as it isn’t called marriage. Do you not love your neighbour? If you loved your neighbour, why would you allow him to commit grave sin? Why would you stand there and do nothing as he slaughters his own soul? Do you not realize that in a union, homosexuals will fornicate? Do you not realize this? Are you so obsessed with this world and its honours and excesses, that you have forgotten the one true mission that we have been engaging in for two thousand years - the salvation of souls? Why, oh why, would you let your brothers and sisters perish into the depths of perpetual sin and eternal damnation? You possess no mercy. You possess no love.

All you possess is cowardice. Spare me your pride, heathens. Spare me your relativistic, neo-pagan, modernist, liberal perspective. You do NOT do the work of God, but of the other. You make me sick. How dare you forsake your mission. How dare you let your brothers and sisters drown in the abyss of sin. How dare you! If only you could see me, if only you could see me in all of my fright, you would run in horror. How much more terror will be brought on by He who is waiting for you to stand up and fight in His Name, when all you do is flee. You cowards. You run from the battlefield and suck on your thumbs like the helpless infants that you are. Unborn children put up more of a fight than you do, you pathetic cowards. How much more willing they are to fight for God than you. How much stronger they are than you. How much braver they are than you. They are men, and you are babies. They are slaughtered each day and are stronger than you, and they would give anything for the chance at life that you have. How much greater of a job they would do than you. Die to this world already, cowards, and be reborn to the God of love and justice.

Go ahead, pansy moderator, deduct points and erase this message so that nobody can see it, because I was being mean and not being nice and tolerant and happy and warm and cheerful. Let the people perish in ignorance, for much is only expected from those who know the truth.
Click to expand...
If I was moderator I would leave your comments. It’s free speech.
 
aprilfloyd said:
If I am reading you correctly, it is not heterosexual marriage that leads to these other groups marrying - as we would have seen the evidence of that - so I am assuming you feel it is something intrinsic to homosexual marriage - Can you explain what it is.

We have always had homosexuality, why do you feel it is now a threat? As you say and I agree with you ‘human biology, human nature…’ have not changed. So what is your concern? I don’t see them changing.
Click to expand...
The threat is not persons who are homosexual, the threat is “civil gay marriage.” Whatever a handful of politicians and judges do, it can and will be ignored as a valid law.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, this is a clear Example of Propaganda.

The elements/goals are:
  1. Create confusion by posting a lot.
  2. Create vagueness and doubt.
  3. Keep repeating that the Church is wrong.
  4. Keep repeating.
  5. The truth doesn’t matter.
Peace,
Ed
 
The_Bucket said:
This simply isn’t right RevDon. While sometimes the harm is clear to see, as in the cases of say, murder, assault, theft and adultery… the harm is more difficult to see in say, masturbation, pornography, sex outside of marriage, lack of prayer, missing required church services, self-centeredness and greed.

The harm test is well and fine as a basic principle for civil law, but it can’t be the only plank for it. The harm test is also not really applicable when it comes to evaluating things that do spiritual harm. Spiritual harm is exceedingly difficult to see but it is still real.
Click to expand...
You said that in some instances harm is more difficult to see. I agree. It may even be that the harm is easy to see but difficult to describe in words, never the less. I think that when we are talking to a secular world, that’s our task. Jesus said that it wouldn’t be easy. He said we’d be reviled for it, even crucified for it. I would say that all of the things you mentioned do have harm associated.

An interesting digression

Can we return to the definition of marriage
the possibility of same sex unions
 
edwest2 said:
The threat is not persons who are homosexual, the threat is “civil gay marriage.” Whatever a handful of politicians and judges do, it can and will be ignored as a valid law.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, this is a clear Example of Propaganda.

The elements/goals are:
  1. Create confusion by posting a lot.
  2. Create vagueness and doubt.
  3. Keep repeating that the Church is wrong.
  4. Keep repeating.
  5. The truth doesn’t matter.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed,
You ignore the law at your own peril.
The truth does matter, and yes, merely repeating doesn’t help at all in arriving at the truth.
There is a great deal of difference between doubt and questions that can lead to deeper and stronger understanding.
Turning off your mind isn’t going to help anyone.
Do you think I’m posting too much?
 
edwest2 said:
The threat is not persons who are homosexual, the threat is “civil gay marriage.” Whatever a handful of politicians and judges do, it can and will be ignored as a valid law.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, this is a clear Example of Propaganda.

The elements/goals are:
  1. Create confusion by posting a lot.
  2. Create vagueness and doubt.
  3. Keep repeating that the Church is wrong.
  4. Keep repeating.
  5. The truth doesn’t matter.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I disagree Ed, The truth does matter, it does not matter who is wrong. What is the ‘threat’ that you speak of that is the threat of civil gay marriage? Is it exclusive to civil gay marriage or is it in heterosexual marriage?
 
CollegeStinks said:
You “catholics,” in all of your false glory and uppity enlightened world view, you are not Catholic. I am ashamed to be the brother of those who say that a union between two homosexuals is acceptable, so long as it isn’t called marriage. Do you not love your neighbour? If you loved your neighbour, why would you allow him to commit grave sin? Why would you stand there and do nothing as he slaughters his own soul? Do you not realize that in a union, homosexuals will fornicate? Do you not realize this? Are you so obsessed with this world and its honours and excesses, that you have forgotten the one true mission that we have been engaging in for two thousand years - the salvation of souls? Why, oh why, would you let your brothers and sisters perish into the depths of perpetual sin and eternal damnation? You possess no mercy. You possess no love.

All you possess is cowardice. Spare me your pride, heathens. Spare me your relativistic, neo-pagan, modernist, liberal perspective. You do NOT do the work of God, but of the other. You make me sick. How dare you forsake your mission. How dare you let your brothers and sisters drown in the abyss of sin. How dare you! If only you could see me, if only you could see me in all of my fright, you would run in horror. How much more terror will be brought on by He who is waiting for you to stand up and fight in His Name, when all you do is flee. You cowards. You run from the battlefield and suck on your thumbs like the helpless infants that you are. Unborn children put up more of a fight than you do, you pathetic cowards. How much more willing they are to fight for God than you. How much stronger they are than you. How much braver they are than you. They are men, and you are babies. They are slaughtered each day and are stronger than you, and they would give anything for the chance at life that you have. How much greater of a job they would do than you. Die to this world already, cowards, and be reborn to the God of love and justice.

Go ahead, pansy moderator, deduct points and erase this message so that nobody can see it, because I was being mean and not being nice and tolerant and happy and warm and cheerful. Let the people perish in ignorance, for much is only expected from those who know the truth.
Click to expand...
College stinks,
You have a great gift for the use of language. How about using it in a way that builds conviction about the rightness of your position rather than pouring condemnation on people who can’t understand why they are condemned?
 
Stephen168 said:
I do have a little more patients with dishonest people than Ed does, but not much. When I asked for your definition of marriage, I excepted it to be a definition that you supported and were prepared to defend. As I have said before You want to lead us to a new and better understand, so yes it is your duty to honestly lead the conversation.

Now that you have outlined the requirements for your definition, What is it? What is your definition of marriage? What is the purpose of marriage?
Click to expand...
That’s the definition, I guess, unless you have something you would like to add.

As to purpose, I think the catechism is a good place to begin:
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

Notice: first is the good of spouses.

You could have come up with this. Why don’t you offer some useful information to this string?
I find your allegation of dishonesty highly offensive. It is not dishonest of me to leave room for other posters to have their say. I have no desire to lead this string. Why don’t you take over, with my blessing.
 
Earlier, EDWest posted a link to a Vatican Document that contains the text I post below.
While I would hesitate to go back to an argument from a religious source when this string is supposed to work in Civil Marriage, I do so, I hope, with your indulgence.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

**Vatican point 1: Sacred scripture attests that people were created in the distinction of male and female. It reveals the intention of complementarity and elevates physical-biological sexuality to the spiritual realm. (note: this is not per se marriage, but sets an essential basis for the arguments that will follow)

Vatican point 2: Marriage creates a communion of persons involving the use of the sexual faculty

Vatican point 3: Human beings participate in the act of completing creation. God blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply.” The joining of man and woman, whether in marriage or not, has the capacity of producing offspring. If it were God’s intention that marriage and procreation be exclusively linked, then couples would not be pregnant out of wedlock, and all married couples would be fertile.

Vatican point 4: marriage as a sacrament is a sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church. The relationship between Christ and the Church is definitely not sexual and procreative. It is spiritual. The quality of sacrificial love is the strongest element of the relationship of marriage, which serves to guide the affections and behaviors of spouses and in so doing creates a living image of Christ-like love. The Vatican doesn’t make this point, but I would add that parents schooled in this kind of love can use that as they rear their children.**

The Vatican document goes on to state:
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

**Paragraph 4 says that the union of two homosexuals cannot “be in any way similar or even remotely analogous” to the plan for marriage and family. But anyone who has had direct contact with a family with two partners of the same gender would be hard-put to agree with that statement, particularly as it applies to the spiritual love that is displayed. Complementarity is more than “part A fits into slot B” in any spiritual sense. Complementarity means that two people can fulfill the needs of each other and help each other to live a holy life.

The final paragraph refers to passages in the New Testament taken out of context. It is heartbreaking that persons entrusted to write official documents representing the Church should do that. Paul had no condemnation for two persons of the same gender who formed a union of heart and spirit to represent the love Christ had for the Church. It would be much easier to show that Paul counseled heterosexual people not to get married. The document does say that scripture does “not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it.” That’s a lovely way of saying that they don’t know what causes that mode of life, and possibly saying that it is God-given.

The conclusions given do not derive from the reasons given. The last paragraph was (at least figuratively) written first and then they went fishing for verification of that conclusion, which I find very poorly and unconvincingly done.**
 
RevDon said:
Couldn’t you have offered that, Stephen?
RevDon;10427189:
You could have come up with this.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, I can not come up with your definition. If I did, it would be my definition.

I’ll summarize your two posts to make sure I have your definition correct:
  1. Between one man and one woman
  2. Ordered toward the good of the spouses
  3. Ordered toward the procreation and education of their offspring
  4. Participants must be mature
  5. Participants must freely enter into the relationship
  6. Participants must be monogamous
  7. Must be ordered toward a lifetime commitment
  8. Participants must treat each other with love and respect.
  9. Ordered toward the good of society
Is that your definition of marriage?
 
Stephen168 said:
No, I can not come up with your definition. If I did, it would be my definition.

I’ll summarize your two posts to make sure I have your definition correct:
  1. Between one man and one woman
  2. Ordered toward the good of the spouses
  3. Ordered toward the procreation and education of their offspring
  4. Participants must be mature
  5. Participants must freely enter into the relationship
  6. Participants must be monogamous
  7. Must be ordered toward a lifetime commitment
  8. Participants must treat each other with love and respect.
  9. Ordered toward the good of society
Is that your definition of marriage?
Click to expand...
I did not ask you to come up with MY definition; I asked if you wished to suggestA definition. I am prepared to work with your posting as a starting place

I do not accept the following as a definition of marriage for the sake of this discussion:
one man and one woman
procreation and education of offspring

I would add recognized and protected by the surrounding society
Are you willing to discuss the application of my definition to all incidents of marriage?
 
speakttruth said:
Seeker I would agree to a certain point about rights, but why are they creating civil unions? In a progression that leads to SSM which they have already proved that they wanted that all along. Also to undermine Marriage.
So how is this for the common good when they have an ulterior motive? Do you really believe that they just wanted to stop there?
Is morals only about religion or the common good?
Just a few thoughts
GB
Click to expand...
I don’t know where anyone got the idea that civil unions were the goal. Equality was the goal and civil unions do not provide equality. Gay couples still have to pay lawyers for things that married couples get simply because their union is called “marriage” and the gay couple has a “civil union”. That’s what happened in NJ.

Nobody’s marriage is “undermined” by anyone else’s marriage. If they were, marriage would have been “undermined” a LONG time before this. Straight people have done a fine job “undermining” marriage over the years.

The bottom line is-sacramental marriage and the position of the Church is what it is and it’s not changing. I haven’t read ONE post here that suggests that it should, despite the accusations being thrown around.

This was a discussion of non-sacramental, civil marriage, which already exists-that rapidly devolved into a discussion of sacramental marriage and how the Church defines it. Nobody was asking about that, that’s a settled issue.
 
RevDon said:
I did not ask you to come up with MY definition; I asked if you wished to suggestA definition. I am prepared to work with your posting as a starting place

I do not accept the following as a definition of marriage for the sake of this discussion:
one man and one woman
procreation and education of offspring

I would add recognized and protected by the surrounding society
Are you willing to discuss the application of my definition to all incidents of marriage?
Click to expand...
I asked for YOUR definition of marriage and that is what you gave me. See post 518, 554.

So you are changing your definition…fine. Let me try again:

Your definition of marriage is:
  1. Ordered toward the good of the spouses
  2. Participants must be mature
  3. Participants must freely enter into the relationship
  4. Participants must be monogamous
  5. Must be ordered toward a lifetime commitment
  6. Participants must treat each other with love and respect.
    Ordered toward the good of society
    Recognized by the surrounding society
    Protected by the surrounding society
Is that right?

Yes, I think any definition of marriage should apply to ever situation. I see by your definition that polygamy is OK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top