God Bless Archbiship Nienstedt

[thessalonian]

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/22/same-sex-nienstadt/

Its being sent to every Catholic home in the diocese! I guess a private anonymous donor paid for it. Godbless em! The liberals are of course going to howl and cry fowl. If your in Minnesota please send the Archbiship a note of thanks at the Archdiocese website. You can listen to his words about a quarter of the way down the page. Well spoke AB Nienstedt! To contact go here.

http://www.archspm.org/about/contact-us.php

[Sternhauser]

Just a pet peeve of mine, but the "other side" would have a lot less room to grip their desperate fingernails if we did not use the term "traditional marriage." There's no such thing as "untraditional marriage," and there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage." There never will be.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2010 by Sternhauser

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1285202330' post='2175379']
Just a pet peeve of mine, but the "other side" would have a lot less room to grip their desperate fingernails if we did not use the term "traditional marriage." There's no such thing as "untraditional marriage," and there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage." There never will be.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I do agree. We are letting them capture the language when we give such ground. Though in having the discussions its hard not to.

[OraProMe]

Marriage isn't a religious institution anymore. If the Church thinks it has a right to dictate terms then I'd also like to see it opposing civil marriage and the marriage of atheists.

It's a social contstruct, it can be whatever we want it to be.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1285221647' post='2175429']
Marriage isn't a religious institution anymore. If the Church thinks it has a right to dictate terms then I'd also like to see it opposing civil marriage and the marriage of atheists.

It's a social contstruct, it can be whatever we want it to be.
[/quote]
The question you should ask is why the state is involved in marriage in the first place. When I first started asking that question, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory answer, so my belief was that the state should really have nothing to do with marriage at all, and should just leave the making and defining of marriage up to the Church. Voila! Problem solved.

However, my conclusion missed the very real reasons that the State has an interest in marriage. Although these reasons don't mirror the Church's reasons for upholding marriage between one man and one woman, they do dovetail nicely with the Church's desire to see laws in place that contribute to true human flourishing.

The reason that the State has an interest in marriage is that the union of a man and a woman regularly produces children, and the state doesn't want to take care of them. (Well, maybe the state DOES want to take care of them, but that's another discussion). The State wants a reliable and consistent system for producing and raising new citizens. We call that system marriage. The reality of the situation is that marriage for the State is not about protecting significant emotional relationships, even ones that have a sexual component. The only ones it's interested in are the ones that are likely to produce children. While gay couples can adopt, or (in the case of lesbians) give birth to a child who will then live with one biological parent, the truth is that gay and lesbian relationships cannot, without some sort of assistance, produce children.

Marriage laws are, in large part, about establishing reliability for children -- reliable caregivers and nurturers, reliable paternity, reliable educators, etc. We do children a disservice when we make marriage out to be about adult emotional needs, or about contracts.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Terra Firma' timestamp='1285229069' post='2175431']
The question you should ask is why the state is involved in marriage in the first place. When I first started asking that question, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory answer, so my belief was that the state should really have nothing to do with marriage at all, and should just leave the making and defining of marriage up to the Church. Voila! Problem solved.
[/quote]

I actually agree with you. I had a conversation with a (straight) guy at my uni who studies qwerty theory and feminism in literature about this the other day. Marriage is a religious institution and as states have adopted secularism marriage has lost its spiritual dimensions.

I think that theoretically civil unions for all would be better, then religious couples could have the Church service held after. However, as it is, we've adopted the word "marriage" and completely changed its meaning (long before homosexual rights mind you. I'm talking civil registry here) so it's either alter our language or include homosexuals in the already secular contract between two people that we call marriage.

[quote]
However, my conclusion missed the very real reasons that the State has an interest in marriage. Although these reasons don't mirror the Church's reasons for upholding marriage between one man and one woman, they do dovetail nicely with the Church's desire to see laws in place that contribute to true human flourishing.
[/quote]

I totally agree that love and long term relationships contribute to human flourishing. Although I don't see how homosexuals pose a threat to this interest.

[quote]
The reason that the State has an interest in marriage is that the union of a man and a woman regularly produces children, and the state doesn't want to take care of them. (Well, maybe the state DOES want to take care of them, but that's another discussion). The State wants a reliable and consistent system for producing and raising new citizens. We call that system marriage. The reality of the situation is that marriage for the State is not about protecting significant emotional relationships, even ones that have a sexual component. The only ones it's interested in are the ones that are likely to produce children. While gay couples can adopt, or (in the case of lesbians) give birth to a child who will then live with one biological parent, the truth is that gay and lesbian relationships cannot, without some sort of assistance, produce children.
[/quote]

I disagree. Plenty of unmarried couples have children. Plenty of married couples don't. They're still afforded the chance to marry so, if the state should be allowed to exclude people from marriage because they won't be having children, then they should be excluding a lot more people than gays. If you want to adopt this logic then follow it through to its ridiculous conclusions.

Furthermore you've already acknowledged that homosexuals can and do infact raise children so even if the state did have an interest in using marriage as a way to give children stability it would apply to a lot of gay couples.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1285239949' post='2175433']
I totally agree that love and long term relationships contribute to human flourishing. Although I don't see how homosexuals pose a threat to this interest.
[/quote]
The point is that government has no valid reason to regulate the emotional relationships of human beings. If marriage were solely about emotional involvement, government would have no valid reason to be involved. It is not. It is about a special relationship that alone has the capacity to produce children, spontaneously and without some sorts of extra-relational intervention (like adoption or artificial insemination).

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1285239949' post='2175433']
I disagree. Plenty of unmarried couples have children. Plenty of married couples don't. They're still afforded the chance to marry so, if the state should be allowed to exclude people from marriage because they won't be having children, then they should be excluding a lot more people than gays. If you want to adopt this logic then follow it through to its ridiculous conclusions.

Furthermore you've already acknowledged that homosexuals can and do infact raise children so even if the state did have an interest in using marriage as a way to give children stability it would apply to a lot of gay couples.
[/quote]
No other relationship has the potential of producing children in a spontaneous and non-contemplated way. You will never hear a gay couple say, "Yeah, we didn't know we'd adopted until this kid showed up on our doorstep." This is because no gay or lesbian couple can unite in a way that produces children. I'm not saying that fertility should be a criteria for marriage; I don't believe there should be some sort of government fertility test prior to marriage. What I am saying is that [i]fertility is the reason marriage exists as a social institution in the first place.[/i]

Saying that marriage is about adult emotional needs completely misses the point. If it were about that, I would be advocating all the harder for government to get out of the marriage business, because government has no right to meddle with emotional relationships. But marriage is about providing a normative means in which procreation and child-rearing should occur. That, and that alone, is why government is involved in the marriage business.

[OraProMe]

"It is about a special relationship that alone has the capacity to produce children, spontaneously and without some sorts of extra-relational intervention (like adoption or artificial insemination)."

Please back this up. Especially the qualifiers of the children being produced without extra-relational intervention.

[OraProMe]

Also, if the state's interest in marriage is about children then what does it matter if they're biologically the parent's children or not? If the contract somehow creates a more stable environment to raise children in (which i disagree with) then should the children of homosexuals and infertile couples be deprived of this stability?

You're not really saying that marriage is good for rearing children in if you want to exclude those who adopt or use IVF though, are you? You're saying marriage is good for conceiving in which, to me atleast, seems pretty ridiculous.

"I'm not saying that fertility should be a criteria for marriage; I don't believe there should be some sort of government fertility test prior to marriage."

Awesome, then the reasons you've so far given to exclude homosexuals from civil marriage (they can't have biological children) don't apply and aren't a reason at all.

Edited September 23, 2010 by OraProMe

[Sojourner]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1285257557' post='2175466']
"It is about a special relationship that alone has the capacity to produce children, spontaneously and without some sorts of extra-relational intervention (like adoption or artificial insemination)."

Please back this up. Especially the qualifiers of the children being produced without extra-relational intervention.
[/quote]
I will be a bit explicit for the sake of clarity. If it needs to be edited, so be it.

Heterosexual vaginal intercourse is THE ONLY mode of sexual activity that can produce children. Therefore, relationships that are based on heterosexual vaginal intercourse are the only relationships that government has an valid interest in because of the long history of heterosexual vaginal intercourse producing children.

The fact that there are children available for homosexual couples to adopt is a sign that something has gone wrong with a couple whose relationship is based on heterosexual vaginal intercourse -- they didn't marry for whatever reason, there were drugs involved, someone died, they divorced, etc.

When things go wrong in relationships based on heterosexual vaginal intercourse, the government has to get MORE involved and spend MORE money solving the problems of the children naturally produced in these relationships. Laws should be created to encourage things to go right in these relationships, which again, are THE ONLY relationships in which children are produced without some sort of advanced plan.

By shifting the focus away from providing stable environments for children with their biological parents (i.e., those who engaged in heterosexual vaginal intercourse and produced the child in question), and putting it on adult emotional needs, we are weakening the structures that are designed to lessen governmental intrusion in our lives, and to protect children.


[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1285257869' post='2175468']
Also, if the state's interest in marriage is about children then what does it matter if they're biologically the parent's children or not? If the contract somehow creates a more stable environment to raise children in (which i disagree with) then should the children of homosexuals and infertile couples be deprived of this stability?

You're not really saying that marriage is good for rearing children in if you want to exclude those who adopt or use IVF though, are you? You're saying marriage is good for conceiving in which, to me atleast, seems pretty ridiculous.

"I'm not saying that fertility should be a criteria for marriage; I don't believe there should be some sort of government fertility test prior to marriage."

Awesome, then the reasons you've so far given to exclude homosexuals from civil marriage (they can't have biological children) don't apply and aren't a reason at all.
[/quote]
I don't want to exclude those who adopt or use IVF from marrying (although I think the latter is a misdirected scientific effort that introduces an additional level of complexity and confusion to the issue). A heterosexual couple's inability to produce a child through heterosexual vaginal intercourse does not change the fact that their relationship is based on heterosexual vaginal intercourse, and those are the ONLY types of relationships that can naturally produce children, and therefore the ONLY types of relationships that government needs to be involved in.

All other situations in which children are raised are deviations from the norm, and require more government involvement to resolve. They are not the ideal, in a broad sense.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1285221647' post='2175429']
Marriage isn't a religious institution anymore. If the Church thinks it has a right to dictate terms then I'd also like to see it opposing civil marriage and the marriage of atheists.

It's a social contstruct, it can be whatever we want it to be.
[/quote]

Sounds like your saying religion has no voice in society. Therefore the Archbishop should keep his opinions to himself. He is putting out a DVD to CATHOLICS! He is not sending it to every household in Minnesota but every Catholic household in his diocese. And you see a problem with this? The Church has a very valid concern with regard to what marriage is supposed to be. In an imperfect world it will vary between nothing at all and free sex and every child has three different stepdads or moms and two moms and two dads to what it should be. One man, one woman, declaring their union before God and their fellow man for life. The Church has a voice in this like everyone else. Your attempt at censorship is rather UnAmerican I think. But God bless you.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1285263087' post='2175481']
Sounds like your saying religion has no voice in society. Therefore the Archbishop should keep his opinions to himself. He is putting out a DVD to CATHOLICS! He is not sending it to every household in Minnesota but every Catholic household in his diocese. And you see a problem with this? The Church has a very valid concern with regard to what marriage is supposed to be. In an imperfect world it will vary between nothing at all and free sex and every child has three different stepdads or moms and two moms and two dads to what it should be. One man, one woman, declaring their union before God and their fellow man for life. The Church has a voice in this like everyone else. Your attempt at censorship is rather UnAmerican I think. But God bless you.
[/quote]
Is it un-Australian?

Btw, thanks for the heads up on the dvd.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1285263087' post='2175481']
Sounds like your saying religion has no voice in society. Therefore the Archbishop should keep his opinions to himself. He is putting out a DVD to CATHOLICS! He is not sending it to every household in Minnesota but every Catholic household in his diocese. And you see a problem with this? The Church has a very valid concern with regard to what marriage is supposed to be. In an imperfect world it will vary between nothing at all and free sex and every child has three different stepdads or moms and two moms and two dads to what it should be. One man, one woman, declaring their union before God and their fellow man for life. The Church has a voice in this like everyone else. Your attempt at censorship is rather UnAmerican I think. But God bless you.
[/quote]
This is a good point, thess. I think it is odd and sad to attempt to silence a huge swath of people who make decisions about public policy informed, in large part, by their religious beliefs.

I also think that it is silly, and stupid, to ignore the State's valid secular rationales for promoting one man/one woman marriage simply because some aspects happen to coincide with religious belief.

The Church addresses these valid secular rationales for promoting heterosexual marriage in the CDF's 2003 document titled "[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.[/url]" This document was authored by our current Pope when he was head of the CDF, and I've seen nothing from him toning down the instructions given to Catholics in this document. A relevant quote regarding the duties of Catholics with regard to gay marriage (emphasis mine):
[quote][b] Moral conscience requires that, [i]in every occasion[/i], Christians give witness to the whole moral truth[/b], which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. [/quote]
I take this to mean that even in private conversations among themselves, faithful Catholics are required to give external assent to the Church's teaching on this matter.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1285263087' post='2175481']
Sounds like your saying religion has no voice in society. Therefore the Archbishop should keep his opinions to himself. He is putting out a DVD to CATHOLICS! He is not sending it to every household in Minnesota but every Catholic household in his diocese. And you see a problem with this? The Church has a very valid concern with regard to what marriage is supposed to be. In an imperfect world it will vary between nothing at all and free sex and every child has three different stepdads or moms and two moms and two dads to what it should be. One man, one woman, declaring their union before God and their fellow masn for life. The Church has a voice in this like everyone else. Your attempt at censorship is rather UnAmerican I think. But God bless you.
[/quote]

Lay off the hyperbole. I'm not saying that at all. Catholics have just as much right to vote and be involved in politics as anyone else. I just wish they'd drop the crappy arguments and just admit that the reason they oppose gay marriage isn't for any secular reason at all, it's because they have a religious belief that homosexual acts are immoral and the state cannot condone them. I'd respect that a lot more.

I don't know how me having a different opinion to the Archbishop somehow translates into me thinking the Archbishop shouldn't be allowed to express his beliefs. "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"..and all that.

Also, your statement that my alleged attempt at censorship is unamerican is pretty hilarious given that the Church has heavily censored anything they disagreed with for centuries and even maintained an Index of forbidden books up until the 70s. Just an observation

Edited September 24, 2010 by OraProMe

[OraProMe]

Terra,

I get what you're saying. I guess I just don't see or agree that the state is interested in marriage because heterosexual sex leads to children. Like I pointed out before if we were to follow this logic the state shouldn't care about infertile couples or those who adopts, but we know it does, so I think there's definitely more to it than "if you insert your penis into your wife's vagina you'll become pregnant". I'm just going to paste what I said before because you didn't really respond to it. I have a feeling we'll just have to agree to disagree

[i]Also, if the state's interest in marriage is about children then what does it matter if they're biologically the parent's children or not? If the contract somehow creates a more stable environment to raise children in (which i disagree with) then should the children of homosexuals and infertile couples be deprived of this stability?

You're not really saying that marriage is good for rearing children in if you want to exclude those who adopt or use IVF though, are you? You're saying marriage is good for conceiving in which, to me atleast, seems pretty ridiculous.[/i]