Where Is The Line Drawn?

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1334688782' post='2419614']
The Libertarianish part of me tends to agree.

The however-much-repressed-and-inept theological side of me wonders how to square that first opinion with us all being part of the body of Christ...of sin (however hidden) having societal impacts....Am my brother's keeper, except here, and except there???


I struggle with this...just being honest.
[/quote]

I thought long and hard about whether or not to respond to this, Jason, because I figured that most would willfully misconstrue what I am about to say. Yet, it's pressing on me. I think I can address your question in a way that reflects both the Libertarian view and fidelity to the Church and to Christian morality. I apologize in advance for the WALL OF TEXT. It might get tangential, but I'm going to try to develop a very full answer.

People are inclined by nature to find the ground upon which to regard themselves as superior to others. It's how we are built. Homosexuality is one of those issues where a combination of political rhetoric and personal emotion come into collision. Throw in the additional aspect of sexual behaviour and you've got yourself a hot button topic. This applies especially in America, where the fabric of our culture is still shot through with Puritanical inclinations in regard to the treatment of sex as a topic of conversation.

The so-called "homosexual lobby" is an invention of the largely-evangelical right wing intended to make people hate and fear those who identify themselves as homosexual. I'm sorry, but there is not a large group of gays out there whose sole mission in life is to create a whole nation of converted homosexuals. They are not lobbying for people to become gay. That is ridiculous. Those who work on policy issues that reflect civil rights in terms of sexual orientation aren't trying to get people to become gay. They (generally) are trying to advocate for the population of people that they represent. In a civil society, there is nothing wrong with that. So this demonization of the "homosexual agenda" is pretty goofy, I think. Everyone has an agenda, folks. Somehow having an agenda only becomes wrong when you don't like the other person's agenda.

In terms of the libertarian perspective, everyone has the ability to choose what they desire for their life and to make those choices without impediment, specifically government impediment. So long as your ability to do the same is not infringed upon, then each individual may make whatever choice is suitable for them. I'd like to stress at this point that in no way should religion and government couple together. It's one of the foundational concepts of the American tradition. Each person is free in the exercise of their faith without government intervention or coercion. While some may find homosexual behaviours objectionable, it is a specious argument that two people who are in a homosexual relationship do actual physical damage to any other person. Disliking something, or finding it distasteful, is not the same as doing damage. We live in a free society, and no one has the right to demand that they never see anything with which they disagree, in the same way that no one can claim a right not to be offended. If you get offended, guess what? You're offended. End of story. It's not like getting punched in the face. Now here I am not referring to the damage involved on individuals within a relationship. I speak only of the "society" which people like to bandy about.

To step one bit further, Catholics argue vehemently against gay marriage. Understandable, when you do not view that relationship as natural or valid. However, we're missing the point on this argument. The fact is, marriage is a SACRAMENT of the Church. It cannot be changed, altered or misapplied. The Church can confer this sacrament only in specific circumstances, and it applies only to specific individuals, i.e., one man with one woman. No matter how much gesticulating, waving of hands, or words are used, no Catholic priest can ever marry a homosexual couple. IT CANNOT BE DONE. No law can ever change that fact. Even if, God forbid, the government should ever try to enforce a law that told churches what they could do in their religious rites, no homosexual couple would ever be married in a Catholic church, EVER. I could pronounce myself Pope right now. See how that works out for me. It can't be done. So Catholics should sleep soundly at night knowing that the sacrament of marriage can't be conferred on anyone except a heterosexual couple.

In the sense of civil marriage, however, the story is different. Honestly, religious sacraments and civil law don't mix and won't mix, ever. Marriages given as a civil matter of administration are not religious marriages and can't ever be. That is a matter of civil jurisdiction. A civil marriage is the joining of two individuals together in a contracted state wherein they agree to administer their legal and financial affairs in a joint manner and agree to share their physical goods. In this strict sense, I can't see the legality of denying any two people the ability to enter into such a contracted state. Bear in mind, this has NOTHING to do with the sinful/moral nature of any relationship, nor does it have any bearing on whether a good Catholic supports "gay marriage." I established above that it's not physically possible for a Catholic to support such a thing, because it does not exist. In addition, there are no specific legal rights inherent in a religious marriage. The additional element of the civil marriage contract deals with those issues. Since there are no religious implications in the civilly contracted state that is also referred to by people as "marriage," the civil marriage contract cannot be infringed upon by religious authorities. They are separate things. The sacrament of marriage is the unbreakable binding of two souls together into one flesh in the sight of God. A civil marriage is a contract having to do with physical goods and legal administration. The two are distinct. The libertarian view is that the two remain distinct, since we do not live in a theocracy, and that people are free to choose whatever civil contract they desire to enter into, so long as there is no coercion involved and said contract does not directly do damage to any other individual.

The larger story here is that people don't like being uncomfortable. Understandable. But living as a free person means that you can never be shielded from discomfort, simply by virtue of feeling uncomfortable. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That which constitutes happiness to one does not necessarily mean the same to another.

But, but, you say, SIN. What of the affect of sin to the Body of Christ? This is a valid point. As Catholics this is what we believe, that sin does damage to us all as a collective because we are all of One Body. The fact is, nothing changes. Two gays living together does no more damage to us than two straight unmarrieds living together, or a man cheating on his wife, or a thief, or a murderer, or a liar. Sin wounds. In terms of gay people you do exactly what you do for every other sin: live the life you want to be an example. Show love to your brethren. Pray. Avail yourself of the sacraments. There is nothing wrong with telling someone why you think that what they are doing is wrong. But you can't expect to physically change their behaviours or alter their choices. That is within each human heart, where they are accountable to God. Let your example be the change agent. If you expect to legislate people into the behaviours you want, well, the world will end long before that ever happens.

People select their pet sins. "Well yeah, I'm a fornicator, but dude, that guy is TEH GAY." Homosexuality is an easy one to crusade against because it represents "the other." It resonates with people in the same way that nationalism does. And I've heard the "but but SINS THAT CRY TO HEAVEN" argument made also, but I'd like to point out that what is listed in the Catechism is "the sin of the Sodomites." A case could be made that they were referring to gay sex, but it doesn't say that. When viewing the "sin of the Sodomites" in context with the other "sins that cry to heaven," I'd say that that interpretation does not make sense. The blood of Abel (murder). The mistreatment of widows and orphans (oppression). Deprivation of the wage earner (labour rights). Somehow, in that list, it seems much more likely that the sin of Sodom was referring to the poor treatment of those seeking shelter than to buggery. But, as I said, people pick their pet sins. I mean, you hear loads about the "homosexual agenda" but when's the last time you saw Catholics on a "40 Days for Rightful Wages" march? Or how about a radical "stop bombing people and making widows and orphans" campaign?

We as Catholics are called to take a hard path. Forget about politics. Live quietly, in love, and provide the example of Christ to the people that you encounter every day. Let each make their own choices and be accountable to God and to their own consciences. Forget about flags. If you see a rainbow flag waving about somewhere, why not look to the symbol of the promise of God and pray for the restoration of humanity. For we are a broken people, prone to mistakes, and none of us--straight, gay, thief, murderer, liar, masturbator, abortionist, adulterer--is above reproach.

[MissyP89]

[quote][color=#282828]We as Catholics are called to take a hard path. Forget about politics. Live quietly, in love, and provide the example of Christ to the people that you encounter every day. Let each make their own choices and be accountable to God and to their own consciences. Forget about flags. If you see a rainbow flag waving about somewhere, why not look to the symbol of the promise of God and pray for the restoration of humanity.[/quote][/color]

[color=#282828]Hear, hear.[/color]

[Norseman82]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU[/url]

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1334682900' post='2419501']
I have no problem if gay men are in the military. But they shouldn't be allowed to go preaching everywhere they go about how wonderful it is to be gay and how you have to accept them. You don't see me going around telling people how wonderful it is to be straight. I'm too busy speaking about how wonderful it is to be Irish to even have the time to talk about that.

Men weep. Jesus did.
[/quote]

I am unsure if your quote "they shouldn't be allowed to go preaching everywhere they go about how wonderful it is to be gay and how to have to accept them." We DO have to accept gays and lesbians' inherent dignity as they are human beings. I have several friends who are gay or lesbian, and it was not easy at all for them to come to that conclusion. One of my friends contemplated suicide before she finally got help and was able to accept herself for who she was.
While I disagree about the flag being flown in AFGANISTAN, I do no think that this is worth weeping about. there are bigger fish to fry.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='LaPetiteSoeur' timestamp='1334793276' post='2420428']
I am unsure if your quote "they shouldn't be allowed to go preaching everywhere they go about how wonderful it is to be gay and how to have to accept them." We DO have to accept gays and lesbians' inherent dignity as they are human beings. I have several friends who are gay or lesbian, and it was not easy at all for them to come to that conclusion. One of my friends contemplated suicide before she finally got help and was able to accept herself for who she was.
While I disagree about the flag being flown in AFGANISTAN, I do no think that this is worth weeping about. there are bigger fish to fry.
[/quote]

I'm not saying we shouldn't accept them, I'm saying they shouldn't go around talking about how wonderful and natural it is to be gay. Same sex attraction is disordered. Plus, I didn't actually weep, this was an exaggeration. I do not plan to further discuss this matter since I do not wish to debate. You have learned my opinion and I have learned yours. This is fine. There is no reason to further discuss it.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1334688088' post='2419603']
I mean, you can have any opinion you want on their lifestyle, but really, who gives a croutons? It's none of your business what they do.
[/quote]

I agreed with some other points wout made in your later posts in this thread, but I felt as though I must respond to the one quoted above.

[img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/431009_328730050495503_122436007791576_904805_234991362_n.jpg[/img]


I like Salvation. I'd like to share it, on account of the fact that I love it so much.


So, in truth I'd like everyone to be free from sin, and rejoice in that freedom.


Therefore, I'm going to stand against those with same sex attraction living a life of sin, on account of the fact that I love them as Christ would call me to.

If my neighbor's house was burning down, and he didn't want to believe it, I'd want to get him out of that house and save his life, all so that he might live his life to the fullest.

"The thief comes to steal slaughter and destroy. I have come so that you may have life, and have it in abundance." - John 10:10


You see, the Catholic Christian idea of "evangelizing" is not one of hating someone else because of their lifestyle, but of showing them the abundant love of Christ and the grace of his redemption in the sin free lifestyle.

"But BigJon, what's that have to do with the homosexual?"


As my friend, Peter Kreeft, made clear in his 'quote' up above, in order to be "redeemed", you have to first accept the existence of sin.

That is the reason for the "anti-same-sex lifestyle" opinions.


And to spread this opinion, is (although contrary to popular opinion) an act of love.




PS: the "it's their life, they can do what they want. It's none of my business" idea is fairly Morally Relativistic.

Edited April 19, 2012 by BigJon16

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1334784061' post='2420386']
I thought long and hard about whether or not to respond to this, Jason, because I figured that most would willfully misconstrue what I am about to say. Yet, it's pressing on me. I think I can address your question in a way that reflects both the Libertarian view and fidelity to the Church and to Christian morality. I apologize in advance for the WALL OF TEXT. It might get tangential, but I'm going to try to develop a very full answer.

People are inclined by nature to find the ground upon which to regard themselves as superior to others. It's how we are built. Homosexuality is one of those issues where a combination of political rhetoric and personal emotion come into collision. Throw in the additional aspect of sexual behaviour and you've got yourself a hot button topic. This applies especially in America, where the fabric of our culture is still shot through with Puritanical inclinations in regard to the treatment of sex as a topic of conversation.

The so-called "homosexual lobby" is an invention of the largely-evangelical right wing intended to make people hate and fear those who identify themselves as homosexual. I'm sorry, but there is not a large group of gays out there whose sole mission in life is to create a whole nation of converted homosexuals. They are not lobbying for people to become gay. That is ridiculous. Those who work on policy issues that reflect civil rights in terms of sexual orientation aren't trying to get people to become gay. They (generally) are trying to advocate for the population of people that they represent. In a civil society, there is nothing wrong with that. So this demonization of the "homosexual agenda" is pretty goofy, I think. Everyone has an agenda, folks. Somehow having an agenda only becomes wrong when you don't like the other person's agenda.

In terms of the libertarian perspective, everyone has the ability to choose what they desire for their life and to make those choices without impediment, specifically government impediment. So long as your ability to do the same is not infringed upon, then each individual may make whatever choice is suitable for them. I'd like to stress at this point that in no way should religion and government couple together. It's one of the foundational concepts of the American tradition. Each person is free in the exercise of their faith without government intervention or coercion. While some may find homosexual behaviours objectionable, it is a specious argument that two people who are in a homosexual relationship do actual physical damage to any other person. Disliking something, or finding it distasteful, is not the same as doing damage. We live in a free society, and no one has the right to demand that they never see anything with which they disagree, in the same way that no one can claim a right not to be offended. If you get offended, guess what? You're offended. End of story. It's not like getting punched in the face. Now here I am not referring to the damage involved on individuals within a relationship. I speak only of the "society" which people like to bandy about.

To step one bit further, Catholics argue vehemently against gay marriage. Understandable, when you do not view that relationship as natural or valid. However, we're missing the point on this argument. The fact is, marriage is a SACRAMENT of the Church. It cannot be changed, altered or misapplied. The Church can confer this sacrament only in specific circumstances, and it applies only to specific individuals, i.e., one man with one woman. No matter how much gesticulating, waving of hands, or words are used, no Catholic priest can ever marry a homosexual couple. IT CANNOT BE DONE. No law can ever change that fact. Even if, God forbid, the government should ever try to enforce a law that told churches what they could do in their religious rites, no homosexual couple would ever be married in a Catholic church, EVER. I could pronounce myself Pope right now. See how that works out for me. It can't be done. So Catholics should sleep soundly at night knowing that the sacrament of marriage can't be conferred on anyone except a heterosexual couple.

In the sense of civil marriage, however, the story is different. Honestly, religious sacraments and civil law don't mix and won't mix, ever. Marriages given as a civil matter of administration are not religious marriages and can't ever be. That is a matter of civil jurisdiction. A civil marriage is the joining of two individuals together in a contracted state wherein they agree to administer their legal and financial affairs in a joint manner and agree to share their physical goods. In this strict sense, I can't see the legality of denying any two people the ability to enter into such a contracted state. Bear in mind, this has NOTHING to do with the sinful/moral nature of any relationship, nor does it have any bearing on whether a good Catholic supports "gay marriage." I established above that it's not physically possible for a Catholic to support such a thing, because it does not exist. In addition, there are no specific legal rights inherent in a religious marriage. The additional element of the civil marriage contract deals with those issues. Since there are no religious implications in the civilly contracted state that is also referred to by people as "marriage," the civil marriage contract cannot be infringed upon by religious authorities. They are separate things. The sacrament of marriage is the unbreakable binding of two souls together into one flesh in the sight of God. A civil marriage is a contract having to do with physical goods and legal administration. The two are distinct. The libertarian view is that the two remain distinct, since we do not live in a theocracy, and that people are free to choose whatever civil contract they desire to enter into, so long as there is no coercion involved and said contract does not directly do damage to any other individual.

The larger story here is that people don't like being uncomfortable. Understandable. But living as a free person means that you can never be shielded from discomfort, simply by virtue of feeling uncomfortable. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That which constitutes happiness to one does not necessarily mean the same to another.

But, but, you say, SIN. What of the affect of sin to the Body of Christ? This is a valid point. As Catholics this is what we believe, that sin does damage to us all as a collective because we are all of One Body. The fact is, nothing changes. Two gays living together does no more damage to us than two straight unmarrieds living together, or a man cheating on his wife, or a thief, or a murderer, or a liar. Sin wounds. In terms of gay people you do exactly what you do for every other sin: live the life you want to be an example. Show love to your brethren. Pray. Avail yourself of the sacraments. There is nothing wrong with telling someone why you think that what they are doing is wrong. But you can't expect to physically change their behaviours or alter their choices. That is within each human heart, where they are accountable to God. Let your example be the change agent. If you expect to legislate people into the behaviours you want, well, the world will end long before that ever happens.

People select their pet sins. "Well yeah, I'm a fornicator, but dude, that guy is TEH GAY." Homosexuality is an easy one to crusade against because it represents "the other." It resonates with people in the same way that nationalism does. And I've heard the "but but SINS THAT CRY TO HEAVEN" argument made also, but I'd like to point out that what is listed in the Catechism is "the sin of the Sodomites." A case could be made that they were referring to gay sex, but it doesn't say that. When viewing the "sin of the Sodomites" in context with the other "sins that cry to heaven," I'd say that that interpretation does not make sense. The blood of Abel (murder). The mistreatment of widows and orphans (oppression). Deprivation of the wage earner (labour rights). Somehow, in that list, it seems much more likely that the sin of Sodom was referring to the poor treatment of those seeking shelter than to buggery. But, as I said, people pick their pet sins. I mean, you hear loads about the "homosexual agenda" but when's the last time you saw Catholics on a "40 Days for Rightful Wages" march? Or how about a radical "stop bombing people and making widows and orphans" campaign?

We as Catholics are called to take a hard path. Forget about politics. Live quietly, in love, and provide the example of Christ to the people that you encounter every day. Let each make their own choices and be accountable to God and to their own consciences. Forget about flags. If you see a rainbow flag waving about somewhere, why not look to the symbol of the promise of God and pray for the restoration of humanity. For we are a broken people, prone to mistakes, and none of us--straight, gay, thief, murderer, liar, masturbator, abortionist, adulterer--is above reproach.
[/quote]

Thanks for taking the time to post all this. You have a wonderful gift of taking what/how you feel and communicating it honestly and lovingly at the same time. Dare I say I could learn a lesson from you in this regard.

Thank you again..

Pax,

Jason

[kujo]

I Marie-Therese's post.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1334784061' post='2420386']


I'm sorry, but there is not a large group of gays out there whose sole mission in life is to create a whole nation of converted homosexuals.
And I've heard the "but but SINS THAT CRY TO HEAVEN" argument made also, but I'd like to point out that what is listed in the Catechism is "the sin of the Sodomites." A case could be made that they were referring to gay sex, but it doesn't say that. When viewing the "sin of the Sodomites" in context with the other "sins that cry to heaven," I'd say that that interpretation does not make sense. The blood of Abel (murder). The mistreatment of widows and orphans (oppression). Deprivation of the wage earner (labour rights). Somehow, in that list, it seems much more likely that the sin of Sodom was referring to the poor treatment of those seeking shelter than to buggery.
[/quote]

These are the two points with which I take issue. First while I do not think there is a large group of people seeking to turn the nation into homosexuals, there is an concerted effort to make homosexual behavior seem as normal behavior, and to criminalize people who disagree. That is an agenda which with Catholics cannot agree.
Secondly, the sin of the Sodomites has never been about people taking shelter, that is a misreading of the test and the teaching of the Church put forth by people wishing to normalize their behavior.

[she_who_is_not]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1334704604' post='2419836']
Have you seen the radical homosexual atrium? They put in new lighting. It's fabulous.
[/quote]

I like you.

[4588686]

[quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1334856327' post='2420665']
I like you.
[/quote]

Thanks

[Winchester]

[quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1334856327' post='2420665']
I like you.
[/quote]
Yeah, I get that a lot.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1334856327' post='2420665']
I like you.
[/quote]

But do you [i]like him[/i] like him?

[Groo the Wanderer]

wanna ride a camel with three humps

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1334787485' post='2420405']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU[/media]
[/quote]

Nice call!

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1334857676' post='2420683']
wanna ride a camel with three humps
[/quote]

Why do people make comments that make absolutely no sense?