Wrong emphasis in same-sex marriage?

[Rau]

Regarding moral and immoral acts, civil society, through its laws can:

1. 
   *]and ought proscribe immoral acts which are enforceable
   *]and ought prescribe moral acts which are enforceable
   *]but ought not license immoral acts
   *]but ought not prescribe moral acts which are unenforceable
   *]but ought not proscribe immoral acts which are unenforceable
   
   Same Sex Marriage Act violates 3. Think of the children.

1. 
   Does that come from a source ?
   
   Were there broad societal agreement on what is morsl, that might be useful, but in the case of sexuality generally, and SSM in particular, there is no such agreement.

 

[Qoeleth]

I think the problem is a lot of gays and atheists take control of the popular media, and brainwash others.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I think the problem is a lot of gays and atheists take control of the popular media, and brainwash others.

Brainwash? Really?

Give the ease of which one can choose different media outlets this just seems preposterous.

 

[MaryT777]

Brainwash? Really?

Give the ease of which one can choose different media outlets this just seems preposterous.

Is there a secular media outlet out there that is pro marriage between a woman and man and states marriage between two same sex persons is not what God has in mind?

Let me know what it is.

Mary.

 

[o_mlly]

Regarding moral and immoral acts, civil society, through its laws can:

1. 
   *]and ought proscribe immoral acts which are enforceable
   *]and ought prescribe moral acts which are enforceable
   *]but ought not license immoral acts
   *]but ought not prescribe moral acts which are unenforceable
   *]but ought not proscribe immoral acts which are unenforceable
   
   Same Sex Marriage violates 3. Think of the children.

1. Does that come from a source ?
   
   Were there broad societal agreement on what is morsl, that might be useful, but in the case of sexuality generally, and SSM in particular, there is no such agreement.

   The morality of acts does not depend on “societal agreement.” The immediate “usefulness” in defining the obligations and limits of civil governance instructs Catholics as to when in the public square they may and ought to fruitfully work for the passage or repeal of civil laws. SSM is an an abomination of God’s law. The state ought not license licentious behaviors. Catholic emphasis is not misplaced on this issue.

 

[Rau]

The morality of acts does not depend on “societal agreement.” The immediate “usefulness” in defining the obligations and limits of civil governance instructs Catholics as to when in the public square they may and ought to fruitfully work for the passage or repeal of civil laws. SSM is an an abomination of God’s law. The state ought not license licentious behaviors. Catholic emphasis is not misplaced on this issue.

I did not suggest that morality was connected to societal agreement. But a society that does not agree on “what is moral” will have difficulty following the guide since each individual will see issues differently.

Further, the well-intentioned acting to proscribe (what is immoral) may not be wise until more than the minimum support to win the “vote” has been achieved.

Does what you presented come from a source?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Is there a secular media outlet out there that is pro marriage between a woman and man and states marriage between two same sex persons is not what God has in mind?

Let me know what it is.

Mary.

On the news side there is Fox News. I know there used to be a number of family friendly networks like ABC Family and a few others a few years ago. Shows like 7th Haven and such.

No idea what is out there now. But I don’t consider the media outlets to be any effective form of “brainwashing” in either direction.

 

[o_mlly]

… But a society that does not agree on “what is moral” will have difficulty following the guide since each individual will see issues differently.

Your post states the obvious but does not address the OP’s question. Should Catholics de-emphasize their work to reverse the state’s licensing of immoral behavior (SSM) and emphasize efforts for state legislation banning immoral behavior that the state cannot enforce (homosexual acts)? I gave my answer. Do you have an answer?

Further, the well-intentioned acting to proscribe (what is immoral) may not be wise until more than the minimum support to win the “vote” has been achieved.

Again, what is posted is quite obvious. Read my #3 again. The issue is not state proscription but state licensing of immoral behavior. The passive voice in your post still leaves one wondering: If not Catholics then who is supposed to be working to achieve “the minimum support to win the ‘vote’”?

Does what you presented come from a source?

If it has my pseudonym above it then I am its source.

 

[camkutz]

Speaking as a person with same-sex attractions who 100% agree with Church teaching wholeheartedly. I would be against making same-sex acts illegal because where does it stop?

Homosexual sex is as sinful as heterosexual sex when the male and female aren’t married, so where would it stop? Criminalise pre-marital sex? Missing Mass? Adultery?

See, I am 100% against same-sex marriage, I also strongly disagree with same-sex unions however for example, in the UK I don’t know about any other countries the civil partnerships had different rights than that of marriage. Instead of redefining marriage, I would say these people should be given the same financial rights etc. as a hetero married couple. So there would’ve been no need to legalise same-sex marriage

Because realistically at the end of the day there are thousands of belief systems out there and not everyone is going to agree with us so without condoning their sins we have to reach in the middle of the road. Because if the civil unions had the same rights as those of marriage, I’m sure there wouldn’t be such a thing as same-sex marriage legalised in this country.

Remember, God gave us free will so if they want to act against God, so be it, we’ve just got to pray for them and help them in the right direction. Otherwise we would be living in a dictatorship

 

[Vico]

I would not say that it is better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal. Yes, it is a violation of natural and divine law in the eyes of the Christian. However, it does not need to be made illegal. Unlike murder, assault, or theft, homosexuality does not harm other persons nor their belongings (at least, in context and with consent from all parties involved).

While we Christians would see homosexuality as immoral, this should not mean that we need to enforce our morality on others concerning such a subjective issue. With something like abortion, the Christian view is more objective because of the reasoning behind it: it need not fall on divine law.

Also, if we should note it, homosexuality is legal in Vatican City (though, of course, gay marriage is not). While it is distinct from the Holy See, it is still run by the papacy and holds to Catholic standards.

Christians give scandal in their complicity of silence to sodomy, in not opposing that sinful behavior. Sodomy is behavior whereas homosexuality is a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

 

[Peter_J]

Speaking as a person with same-sex attractions who 100% agree with Church teaching wholeheartedly. I would be against making same-sex acts illegal because where does it stop?

Homosexual sex is as sinful as heterosexual sex when the male and female aren’t married, so where would it stop? Criminalise pre-marital sex? Missing Mass? Adultery?

See, I am 100% against same-sex marriage, I also strongly disagree with same-sex unions however for example, in the UK I don’t know about any other countries the civil partnerships had different rights than that of marriage. Instead of redefining marriage, I would say these people should be given the same financial rights etc. as a hetero married couple. So there would’ve been no need to legalise same-sex marriage

Because realistically at the end of the day there are thousands of belief systems out there and not everyone is going to agree with us so without condoning their sins we have to reach in the middle of the road. Because if the civil unions had the same rights as those of marriage, I’m sure there wouldn’t be such a thing as same-sex marriage legalised in this country.

Remember, God gave us free will so if they want to act against God, so be it, we’ve just got to pray for them and help them in the right direction. Otherwise we would be living in a dictatorship

Good post.

Frankly, I think that this “campaign to make homosexual acts criminal”, rather than fighting against SSM, is one of the best illustrations of how, as one might say, “There are conservatives and there are conservatives.” (I guess an even better illustration would be the Westboro Baptist Chipmunks saying “if you fight for a country with gays, we will say you’ve endorsed sodomy” … except that doesn’t really count since they’re chipmunks.)

 

[edwest2]

This isn’t about politics but the truth. The media is controlled by 6 global corporations, and they are on board regarding the same sex agenda. They support it by adding gay characters to comic books, TV shows and movies. And other media. It was all planned out.

amazon.com/Making-Gay-Okay-Rationalizing-Homosexual/dp/1621640868

Same-sex marriage is being marketed like any product but it has another facet as well. When two men or two women can get “married,” it will not stop there.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…Instead of redefining marriage, I would say these people should be given the same financial rights etc. as a hetero married couple. So there would’ve been no need to legalise same-sex marriage.

That has been done in various places. It does not address the demand that SSM be accepted as “the same” as Marriage; it does not address the demand that “same sex attracted people can marry the ‘person they love’ just like the rest of us can”.

 

[Rau]

…The media is controlled by 6 global corporations, and they are on board regarding the same sex agenda. They support it by adding gay characters to comic books, TV shows and movies. And other media. It was all planned out.

Media barons would promote it either because they judged it ‘right’, or they recognised which way the wind was blowing and decided what was best for their business. Separately, yes, they exploit it as you’ve suggested - but that only works because a sufficient number of their customers lap it up.

 

[Qoeleth]

Speaking as a person with same-sex attractions who 100% agree with Church teaching wholeheartedly. I would be against making same-sex acts illegal because where does it stop?

Homosexual sex is as sinful as heterosexual sex when the male and female aren’t married, so where would it stop? Criminalise pre-marital sex? Missing Mass? Adultery?

See, I am 100% against same-sex marriage, I also strongly disagree with same-sex unions however for example, in the UK I don’t know about any other countries the civil partnerships had different rights than that of marriage. Instead of redefining marriage, I would say these people should be given the same financial rights etc. as a hetero married couple. So there would’ve been no need to legalise same-sex marriage

Because realistically at the end of the day there are thousands of belief systems out there and not everyone is going to agree with us so without condoning their sins we have to reach in the middle of the road. Because if the civil unions had the same rights as those of marriage, I’m sure there wouldn’t be such a thing as same-sex marriage legalised in this country.

Remember, God gave us free will so if they want to act against God, so be it, we’ve just got to pray for them and help them in the right direction. Otherwise we would be living in a dictatorship

OK- I am not saying it would be possible or desirable to have ‘bedroom’ police. But rather we need to make homosexual activity something which not ‘acceptable’.

But by making it nominally illegal, it would at least become ‘unacceptable.’

Is there any good way of making it clear that things like homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, etc. are ‘not socially acceptable’?

Take the example of racism. It is now socially unacceptable. Its ‘socially unacceptability’ is supported by law in many places. I suggest homosexuality be treated like racism- something which will not be tolerated (even though it may exist under the surface).

Perhaps we need legislation about media, and they way they present these things…Or maybe just for Christians (and, indeed, many Muslims and atheists) to make it clear that they find homosexual behaviour to be ‘unacceptable’, socially, morally…

 

[Rau]

Racism laws are easily justifiable because they protect members of society from unjust treatment. The private behaviour of consenting adults is not so obviously in need of legal proscription.

 

[Peter_J]

But by making it nominally illegal, it would at least become ‘unacceptable.’

Is there any good way of making it clear that things like homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, etc. are ‘not socially acceptable’?

Hmmm … possibly I’ve been misunderstanding you. I was under the impression that you were singling out homosexual acts as sins-to-be-proscribed-by-law.

 

[Lou2U]

OK- I am not saying it would be possible or desirable to have ‘bedroom’ police. But rather we need to make homosexual activity something which not ‘acceptable’.

But by making it nominally illegal, it would at least become ‘unacceptable.’

Why do we need to make it something unacceptable? And how exactly would you be able to make it illegal without “bedroom police”?

Is there any good way of making it clear that things like homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, etc. are ‘not socially acceptable’?

I think your problem is that two out of the above are considered to be socially acceptable. Homosexual acts and fornication are not viewed negatively in the UK - I can’t speak for the USA, but I think attitudes are fairly similar. Of course, to you as a Catholic, you consider them unacceptable, but they are not in secular society. Do you have any secular reasons as to why they should be considered unacceptable?

As for adultery, I’m pretty sure that isn’t considered acceptable by any society.

Take the example of racism. It is now socially unacceptable. Its ‘socially unacceptability’ is supported by law in many places.

As Rau says, racism laws are easily justifiable. There is nothing so easily justifiable about the private lives of two consenting adults.

I suggest homosexuality be treated like racism- something which will not be tolerated (even though it may exist under the surface).

But why should it be? From your viewpoint as a Catholic, you do not agree with it, which is fine. But why should secular society treat homosexuality (and I’m assuming you mean actions here as the CC doesn’t teach homosexuality to be bad) as racism? The two are not remotely comparable.

Perhaps we need legislation about media, and they way they present these things…Or maybe just for Christians (and, indeed, many Muslims and atheists) to make it clear that they find homosexual behaviour to be ‘unacceptable’, socially, morally…

What do you mean by legislation? Do you think the media should not be allowed to publish pro-homosexual articles?

Also, not all Christians, Muslims, Atheists etc think that it is unacceptable. And if they did, why should this change anything? Why should secular society place one belief over another?

Lou

 

[Peter_J]

Why do we need to make it something unacceptable? And how exactly would you be able to make it illegal without “bedroom police”?

Actually, in the USA it’s more the other way around: as I understand it (and someone more knowledgeable is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong) “Lawrence vs Texas” was a case (which eventually went to the Supreme Court) precisely because the police decided to prosecute the offenders.

 

[Peter_J]

I think your problem is that two out of the above are considered to be socially acceptable. Homosexual acts and fornication are not viewed negatively in the UK - I can’t speak for the USA, but I think attitudes are fairly similar.

I guess it varies. Here on the CA forums, for example, I’m not aware of any threads that propose criminalizing fornication.