New York Legalises Same-Sex Marriage

[Papist]

[font="Arial"][size="3"]Sexual love is what homosexuals are basing their claim of discrimination on. Therefore, sexual love is what homosexuals are standing on. A sterile sexual love. [/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="3"]You can argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and you would be correct. Until recently, the principal purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative part of marriage, much to society's detriment. As a result, the happiness of the individuals in the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with devastating consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to throw out these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plunging birthrate, and countless other social ailments that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these ailments, but it will them make worse, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.[/size][/font]

Edited June 28, 2011 by Papist

[Socrates]

[quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1309221385' post='2259270']
Ron Paul, when asked about same sex marriage vs. civil unions, replied "Let them call it whatever they want."
The reality is homosexual couples exist and they want benefits for their contributions to society. Not a terribly far fetched request.[/quote]
There is absolutely no reason couples in a sodomitic "relationship" deserve any legal or financial benefits not bestowed on any other single, unmarried persons. None.

Homosexual persons may indeed make many contributions to society, but these contributions have nothing to do with their sodomitic activities or relationships, and can be recognized just as the contributions of single persons can.

The entire reason any benefits are given to marriage (from a purely secular perspective) is that the union between man and woman is necessary for the procreation and continuation of the human race, and marriage provides the best, most stable environment for the procreation and raising of children, and deserves support from society.

Same-sex sodomy has no such function.

If you want to know why the Church is not "okay with what's going on in NY," I suggest you read this in its entirety:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I strongly recommend everyone read the entire document, but I'll quote the conclusion here:
[quote]CONCLUSION

11.[b] The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/b][/quote]

[quote]I sometimes look at the Anglicans for a model.[/quote]
I don't. Unfortunately, the Anglicans have lost the Faith on many issues.

In fact, in part because of the increasing liberalization of the Anglican church, many entire Anglican congregations are returning to union with Rome, and leaving the Anglican church.


[quote]Also the Church should take a more open 'we don't mind discussing this' stance on the matter. I feel it is only ever discussed when the politicians are discussing it which is not good. The Church is going to do great as it always has. We have people with wisdom being guided by the Holy Ghost so we can't go wrong. In some ways it is probably good that this is becoming such a discussed topic. Perhaps the lay faithful in the Church are moving more towards a place where dialogue with faithful homosexual Catholics can take place and we can know better the struggles of our brothers and sisters in an open communal way. Keep strong in the faith.[/quote]
Not sure what you mean by a "more open" stance. The Church's timeless teaching regarding the immorality of homosexual behavior is closed, and cannot be open for change or modification. The Church has shown plenty of compassion towards persons suffering from an inclination towards that particular sin, but cannot in any way approve of it, anymore than She can approve of any other mortal sin.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309277105' post='2259702']
Is sexual love the only way describe the homosexual relationship?
[/quote]
I could think of worse things to call it.

Is sexual love the only way to describe an adulterous relationship?

Some sexual actions are intrinsically immoral and sinful, and cannot be defended on the grounds of the sinners being otherwise "nice people."

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309277690' post='2259704']
There's a difference between disagreeing with their choices (of course, whether or not it's a [i]choice[/i] is debatable) and saying mean, hurtful, vile things. I think you and I both know that the latter of those two situations goes on around here...a lot![/quote]
Such as what? Calling a sin a sin?

It's far more hurtful to a person in the long run to pretend like there's nothing wrong with the sin, and allowing the person to fall into hell.
True charity involves looking out for our brothers' and sisters' spiritual welfare, and leading them to heaven. It does not involve condoning intrinsically sinful behavior in order to "play nice" and avoid hurting feelings.

[quote]I have always found the Church's teaching on homosexuality far more progressive than that of the Protestants. I make a point, whenever talking to anyone about this issue, to draw a distinction between the hell-fire and brimstone of the evangelicals and the more pastoral position of the Church.[/quote]
The Church's moral teaching is neither "progressive" (progressing towards what?) nor reactionary, but eternal.
All mortal sin, including homosexual activity does in fact lead to hell-fire if not repented of, and thus it is charitable to admonish the sinner as necessary.

And that's not Protestant fundamentalism, but Catholic teaching.

[katholikkid]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1309275734' post='2259687']
[font="Arial"][size="3"]The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its [/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="3"]fruitfulness[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="3"], is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.[/size][/font]
[/quote]

1. Fruitfulness as a basis for deciding the legitimacy of marriage does little for the infertile, elderly, or handicapped.

2. Taking the 'procreation as criteria' argument to its logical conclusion would give the ok to any male having sex with any female and having it called marriage should she bear a child.

3. To assume that only gay men and lesbians are sex driven in their decision making when it comes to choosing a partner is ignorant. I live in New England and a homosexual couple down the road have been together for 19 years. My other neighbor cheated on his wife. So that goes for both sides of the argument.

4. What gay activist said their reasoning was driven by their sexual love? That assumes there can be no intelectual or spiritual connection or love expressed by monogamous homosexual couples; thereby saying they are incapable of knowing how to love.

5. The purpose of marriage is unitive and procreative. In my first point we see that sometimes that is impossible but that does not mean that the procreativity of the couple cannot be helpful to the society at large vis a vis adoption, foster care, charitable work with at risk mothers etc.

6. Civil union or gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriage nor will cause marital chaos. Divorce and infidelity are probably the two biggest and birth control could be counted with them.

Edited June 28, 2011 by katholikkid

[Papist]

[font="Arial"][size="2"]One can argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.[/size][/font]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
[font="Arial"][size="2"]This begs the question, why do homosexuals desire that the state redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.[/size][/font]

Edited June 28, 2011 by Papist

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309284189' post='2259746']
Such as what? [/quote]

Well:

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309284189' post='2259746']
I could think of worse things to call it.[/quote]

^^^^That attitude^^^^

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309284189' post='2259746']
The Church's moral teaching is neither "progressive" (progressing towards what?) nor reactionary, but eternal.
All mortal sin, including homosexual activity does in fact lead to hell-fire if not repented of, and thus it is charitable to admonish the sinner as necessary.

And that's not Protestant fundamentalism, but Catholic teaching.
[/quote]

You bore me, Soc.

I believe it is more "progressive" than saying "God hates fags." And it's "progressive" in the sense that it shows that one can disagree, even vehemently, with something without being a slack-jawed hominid about it. I'd say it was more "evolved," but something tells me you'd break out in hives and start foaming at the mouth if I brought that word into discussion.

Edited June 28, 2011 by kujo

[Nihil Obstat]

Ooh, it's been a while on Phatmass since we say the "Conservatives are cavemen" argument.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1309287227' post='2259793']
Ooh, it's been a while on Phatmass since we say the "Conservatives are cavemen" argument.
[/quote]

We'll call it vintage

[katholikkid]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309287297' post='2259795']
We'll call it vintage
[/quote]

HAHAHAHA! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif[/img] brilliant!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309287297' post='2259795']
We'll call it vintage
[/quote]
No no. Good Scotch is 'vintage'. That 'argument' (very loosely so-called) was rather gross from the moment it was first used. Sort of like when you're picking up after your dog.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1309289076' post='2259821']
No no. Good Scotch is 'vintage'. That 'argument' (very loosely so-called) was rather gross from the moment it was first used. Sort of like when you're picking up after your dog.
[/quote]

Which argument are you referring to?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309289165' post='2259823']
Which argument are you referring to?
[/quote]
The "Conservatives are cavemen" one.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1309289223' post='2259824']
The "Conservatives are cavemen" one.
[/quote]

Oh. Yeah, I agree. I'm a (political) conservative as well. For the most part, anyway.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309289273' post='2259825']
Oh. Yeah, I agree. I'm a (political) conservative as well. For the most part, anyway.
[/quote]
Wow, we agreed on something. Go figure.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1309289367' post='2259826']
Wow, we agreed on something. Go figure.
[/quote]
I'm not a political conservative though, in its current sense...