Gay Marriage, Permissible Catholic Views

[thessalonian]

Kujo,


" there is no way that the federal or state govern[color=#282828]ment could pass a law that would force Catholic priests to [/color][color=#282828]marry 2 gay [/color][color=#282828]men.[/color]"

And Oboma is not trying to force the CC to pay for insurance that pays for contraceptives and abortion pills either.

"The point I'[color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]making is that Catholics don't need govern[/color][color=#282828]ment recognition for their sacra[/color][color=#282828]ment, and so they shouldn't really care what the govern[/color][color=#282828]ment does with their unholy (re: secular) version of it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "[/color][color=#282828]man is only [/color][color=#282828]married when the laws of [/color][color=#282828]man approve of the [/color][color=#282828]marriage." [/color]

[color=#282828]Thank you for telling us all what Catholics do and don't need to be concerned about. I'll forward your post to my bishop as a better authority than he. As I said libs always like to find some way to try and silence the opposition. I understood your post quite well. I think you should look in the mirror when writing your next reply to me as likely you will see some of yourself in what you write. [/color]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337186304' post='2431261']
Of course, there are [font=Segoe UI][color=#282828]just as [/color][/font][color=#282828]many [/color][color=#282828]murders in heterosexual fa[/color][color=#282828]milies. And cheating on one's spouse has sort of been [/color][color=#282828]monopolized by heterosexuals for the past few thousand years, when you think about it.[/color]

[color=#282828]And by your logic about the opti[/color][color=#282828]mu[/color][color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]makeup of the fa[/color][color=#282828]mily, you could argue that divorces should be outlawed because a child needs "[/color][color=#282828]maleness and fe[/color][color=#282828]maleness" in their lives. [/color]

[color=#282828]As for your "high rate of violence and infidelity" nonsense, prove it. Show [/color][color=#282828]me statistics. And then show [/color][color=#282828]me those sa[/color][color=#282828]me statistics in heterosexual households. I'll go ahead and hold [/color][color=#282828]my breath, because I'[/color][color=#282828]m [i]totally[/i] confident that you'll be able to prove your bigoted-point before I die of asphyxiation. [/color]
[/quote]I'm completely against divorce in almost all cases, though I can imagine a situation where it is the lesser of two evils. That means that saying that allowing divorce is equal to allowing homosexual marriages doesn't stand. Gay marriage cannot ever be the lesser of two equals.

Not only that, the two cannot be equivalent because of the points in marriage when they take place.

I'm not going to go into statistics myself, but I will point out that there are two sides to this conversation. The children are the end of marriage in a special way and ought to be treated as such.

Edited for clarity's sake.

Edited May 16, 2012 by qfnol31

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337186258' post='2431260']
Just because you can provide examples of heterosexual couples being bad parents and homosexual couples being good parents does not mean that a child does not benefit from both parents.[/color]

[color=#282828]In fact, I would argue that the cases of heterosexual couples being poor parents just proves my point.[/color]

[color=#282828]Now if you were in fact making the opposite point that point that bad kids can come from couples period, then your argument could be used to say also that such kids didn't need parents at all because it didn't matter what the parents did. This is false. Kids have a right to both parents regardless of their later actions. It is part of our nature to need a father and a mother. Furthermore, a child receives more from their parents that simply a sense of morality.[/color]


[color=#282828]I didn't say that. I said that a man and a woman by nature each have something different to offer to their children, just as they do to marriage. Not only is this a teaching of the Catholic Church, it is also an assumption by the government. In my argument, I am pointing out that the government says two contradictory things, and I agree with the point that a mother and a father both matter.[/color]

[color=#282828]It isn't a civil right that anyone can adopt from whomever they choose.
[/quote]

Correct. But it is a civil right that you shouldn't be the victi[color=#282828]m of [/color]discri[color=#282828]mination because of your age, gender, race, sexual-orientation, disability, etc. [/color]

[color=#282828]TBH, I don't know what [/color][color=#282828]my opinion is on whether Catholic adoption agencies ought to be able to discri[/color][color=#282828]minate. They, too, have the right to their beliefs, and a case could be [/color][color=#282828]made that the govern[/color][color=#282828]ment ought not to force the[/color][color=#282828]m to do things that run against their beliefs. Naturally, this issue would run parallel to the HHS [/color][color=#282828]mandate thing, though I would resist that [/color][color=#282828]connection because paying for birth control and abortion is certainly a whole lot different than allowing gays to adopt in ter[/color][color=#282828]ms of culpability and sin. I dunno...haven't really thought about this issue...[/color]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337186625' post='2431268']
Correct. But it is a civil right that you shouldn't be the victi[color=#282828]m of [/color]discri[color=#282828]mination because of your age, gender, race, sexual-orientation, disability, etc. [/color]

[color=#282828]TBH, I don't know what [/color][color=#282828]my opinion is on whether Catholic adoption agencies ought to be able to discri[/color][color=#282828]minate. They, too, have the right to their beliefs, and a case could be [/color][color=#282828]made that the govern[/color][color=#282828]ment ought not to force the[/color][color=#282828]m to do things that run against their beliefs. Naturally, this issue would run parallel to the HHS [/color][color=#282828]mandate thing, though I would resist that [/color][color=#282828]connection because paying for birth control and abortion is certainly a whole lot different than allowing gays to adopt in ter[/color][color=#282828]ms of culpability and sin. I dunno...haven't really thought about this issue...[/color]
[/quote]It's not technically based on sexual orientation, but the status of their marriage. If the Catholic Church sees it as an invalid marriage it's discriminating on that factor.

If a gay man were to marry a woman (or even a lesbian), but they had a real marriage (I dunno if it's possible, but still), I doubt the Catholic Church would discriminate against them.

[kujo]

Thess,

I a[color=#282828]m not a liberal, and I a[/color][color=#282828]m not looking to "silence" you or anyone else. By all [/color][color=#282828]means, talk away. I think your opinions are wrong, of course, just as you find [/color][color=#282828]my opinions to be wrong.[/color]

[color=#282828]Also, don't [/color][color=#282828]make the [/color][color=#282828]mistake of thinking that I don't know Church teaching. While I a[/color][color=#282828]m certainly no doctor or scholar, I was born and raised Catholic, studied Catholicis[/color][color=#282828]m and theology with the intention of beco[/color][color=#282828]ming a priest, [/color][color=#282828]and still consider [/color][color=#282828]myself a work in progress, regardless of the little tag beneath [/color][color=#282828]my picture on Phat[/color][color=#282828]mass. I struggle with Church teaching, and [/color][color=#282828]make no apologies for it. I a[/color][color=#282828]m not a robot, and I have a very analytical, skeptical brain, which, if I'[/color][color=#282828]m not [/color][color=#282828]mistaken, was given to [/color][color=#282828]me by God, and nurtured by [/color][color=#282828]my fa[/color][color=#282828]mily. [/color]

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337186768' post='2431270']
It's not technically based on sexual orientation, but the status of their marriage. If the Catholic Church sees it as an invalid marriage it's discriminating on that factor.

If a gay man were to marry a woman (or even a lesbian), but they had a real marriage (I dunno if it's possible, but still), I doubt the Catholic Church would discriminate against them.
[/quote]

So, what you're saying is that the whole "discri[color=#282828]minating" thing is a sha[/color][color=#282828]m, because assessing the "validity" or "status" of the [/color][color=#282828]marriage is really nothing [/color][color=#282828]more than looking underneath each person's pantaloons to [/color][color=#282828]make sure they've got the right parts.[/color]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337187031' post='2431273']
So, what you're saying is that the whole "discri[color=#282828]minating" thing is a sha[/color][color=#282828]m, because assessing the "validity" or "status" of the [/color][color=#282828]marriage is really nothing [/color][color=#282828]more than looking underneath each person's pantaloons to [/color][color=#282828]make sure they've got the right parts.[/color]
[/quote]I think there's more to a man and a woman than their sexual orientation or sexual organs. I also think the Church recognizes this very particular distinction between the two and acts accordingly.

I'll see if I can pull out my old readings on this, but as far as I know, the distinction between man and woman has been universally recognized for most of history. Only in modern times has the line become so blurred that it practically disappears.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337185534' post='2431252']
Well, for starters, a turkey dinner is better than a Hot Pocket. But they'll both get the job done when you're hungry.

This is not to say that straight parents are "better" than gay ones. History is replete with insufferable twits being reared by the [color=#282828]most heterosexual of couples. While you [/color][color=#282828]may believe that one situation is [/color][color=#282828]more ideal than another, other people--and the justice syste[/color][color=#282828]m of the U.S.-- don't have to abide by your opinion. Or the Church's, for that [/color][color=#282828]matter.[/color]

[color=#282828]And please, gay people are every bit as capable of being loving, supportive, nurturing parents as straight people. It's nonsense to say otherwise.[/color]
[/quote]Natural parents can be bad parents as well. People who are raising kids generally prefer to raise kids they are genetically related to. It's human nature and generall nature in most higher animals to initially care more for your own blood. There is always exceptions to the rule. You've probably heard the news yesterday about the woman in Pasco County that shot her four kids and herself.

Fundamentally, I think a marriage used to be defined as a couple making the life long commitment to each other and probably children. Modern times has seen marriage re-defined as a couple making a commitment to each other only as long as they are personally happy, and the welfare of children and sense of self-sacrifice for each other and children is insignificant. Children usually suffer the most from a broken family.

I think SS Marriage or Civil Unions culturally replacing a committed life-long committed marriage. I think that's a symptom of society that has become increasingly oriented to self gratification and lost value for striving for ideals.

As parents, my wife and I had to consider who would care for our kids if we died and listed them in priority. We have close friends that we (and our kids) consider as family and they were rated above many other possible hetero couples. (Edit to add they happen to be gay) I agree, it's about moral values and what type of person they are. Sexuality isn't the end-all or most important aspect of who people are.

It seems that defining marriage in society in merely civil terms, a mutually agreed to partnership that is easily entered into or dissolved, reduces the idea of life long commitment as being an insignificant consideration. Humans are much more evolved and have morals and principles than what can be codified in civil law.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Anomaly

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337187274' post='2431276']
It seems that defining marriage in society in merely civil terms, a mutually agreed to partnership that is easily entered into or dissolved, reduces the idea of life long commitment as being an insignificant consideration. Humans are much more evolved and have morals and principles than what can be codified in civil law.
[/quote]

Right. The point I a[color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]making is that civil or secular [/color][color=#282828]marriage doesn't have to be identical to religious [/color][color=#282828]marriage.[/color]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337187274' post='2431276']It seems that defining marriage in society in merely civil terms, a mutually agreed to partnership that is easily etered into or dissolved, reduces the idea of life long commitment as being an insignificant consideration. Humans are much more evolved and have morals and principles than what can be codified in civil law.
[/quote]I think this statement gets to the heart of what has begun to plague us as a society. I feel like recently we have confined ourselves and our conversations to the law, as though the law is the end of freedom. I have always taken a different approach where I begin with the law, but can think beyond it. I think of the law as the beginning of freedom in a sense.

In more concrete terms, I think that people are unwilling to recognize anything beyond the law or the law's connection to reality, as though it's an arbitrary, heteronomous judgment. Laws, particularly in our country, are meant to help "establish justice" and promote a better society. They are particularly directed to the good of society and should function in that way. We don't have to be limited to the laws. I can think that there is more than what the law offers, but that doesn't mean that the law offers nothing. In this case, while marriage is not what it once was, I still see the law as providing something uniquely valuable for us and for our society.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337187514' post='2431279']
Right. The point I a[color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]making is that civil or secular [/color][color=#282828]marriage doesn't have to be identical to religious [/color][color=#282828]marriage.[/color]
[/quote]But simply because it doesn't have to be identical doesn't mean that they aren't in common with each other. This is my point about how the lack of permanence does not mean that secular marriage can be redefined to include all sorts of couples. Natural marriage is a true reality and ought to be reflected and defended to the best of society's ability.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337186304' post='2431261']

Of course, there are [font=Segoe UI][color=#282828]just as [/color][/font][color=#282828]many [/color][color=#282828]murders in heterosexual fa[/color][color=#282828]milies. And cheating on one's spouse has sort of been [/color][color=#282828]monopolized by heterosexuals for the past few thousand years, when you think about it.[/color]

[color=#282828]And by your logic about the opti[/color][color=#282828]mu[/color][color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]makeup of the fa[/color][color=#282828]mily, you could argue that divorces should be outlawed because a child needs "[/color][color=#282828]maleness and fe[/color][color=#282828]maleness" in their lives. [/color]
[color=#282828][/quote][/color]

[color=#282828]I love how you like to pick the polarized end of things for our arguements. Actually society was much better off before no-fault divorce considering the statistics on children in single parent homes. So I would certainly be in favor of going back 30 years on marriage laws in this area as well. I think your denial of the optimal quality of child rearing with two loving parents of opposite gender speaks for itself quite well as to your biases and cognitive abilities. Do you really believe there is no evidence that both the father and mother who do a good job of modeling maleness and femaleness have no positive impact on the child on both the male and female child? Further there are many studies showing that those who do a bad job of this have severely detrimental effects. THis in fact proves the point just as much. But I am sure that will go right over your head.[/color]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337186304' post='2431261']



[color=#282828]As for your "high rate of violence and infidelity" nonsense, prove it. Show [/color][color=#282828]me statistics. And then show [/color][color=#282828]me those sa[/color][color=#282828]me statistics in heterosexual households. I'll go ahead and hold [/color][color=#282828]my breath, because I'[/color][color=#282828]m [i]totally[/i] confident that you'll be able to prove your bigoted-point before I die of asphyxiation. [/color]
[/quote]

You really should learn to use google before you open your trap. I am sure you will agree that the articles I found below are not biased toward my side of the issue.

[font="Arial"][size="3"][url="http://www.broken-rainbow.org.uk/research/domestic%20violence%20in%20gay%20and%20lesbian%20relationships.pdf"]http://www.broken-rainbow.org.uk/research/domestic%20violence%20in%20gay%20and%20lesbian%20relationships.pdf[/url][/size][/font]

[left][font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]Studies in the U.S. indicate that approximately 22 to 46% of lesbians had been in a[/size][/font][/size][/font][/left]
[left][font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]physically violent intimate partner relationship (Bagshaw et al. 2000). Other studies[/size][/font][/size][/font][/left]
[left][font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]estimate that 15 to 20% of gay men and lesbians had been affected by domestic[/size][/font][/size][/font][/left]
[left][font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]violence (Vickers 1996). Most of this research has been based on self-selected[/size][/font][/size][/font][/left]
[left][font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]samples; nevertheless, they signal that domestic violence in same-sex relationships[/size][/font][/size][/font][/left]
[font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]is a major issue (Paroissien & Stewart 2000).[/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"][url="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J041v04n01_01"]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J041v04n01_01[/url][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[b] [font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]Abstract[/size][/font][/size][/font][/b]



[font="Arial"][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="3"]Lesbian and gay domestic violence has shattered the illusion that gays and lesbians are less violent than their heterosexual coutnerparts. The reality is that domestic violence occurs at approximately the same rate in gay and lesbian relationships as it does in heterosexual unions. Many similarities exist, but the differences between same-sex battering and heterosexual battering are the reason this controversial topic has taken so long to address in both the gay and lesbian community and in the battered women's movement. New theories of violence and models for intervention must be developed if same-sex domestic violence is to be confronted.[/size][/font][/size][/font]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337187514' post='2431279']
Right. The point I a[color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]making is that civil or secular [/color][color=#282828]marriage doesn't have to be identical to religious [/color][color=#282828]marriage.[/color]
[/quote]Exactly. Hence my mixed feelings.

Ideals can't be all codified into law. I believe the instability of modern marriages has had a huge negative impact on the general welfare of children and society as a whole. I don't think society should do anything to promote the idea that a intra-personal bond is only defined by base civil laws. However, I think that people who desire to form a union, be it two unmarried siblings, close friends, or homosexual couple should be able to avail themselves of civil protection, rights, and certain benefits. If a couple of sisters who never got married but chose to live together to share their house, finances, and care for each other, they should have a clear and just way to name each other as co-benificiaries and mutual dependents.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1337187751' post='2431285']
[/color][color=#282828]speaks for itself quite well as to your biases and cognitive abilities.[/color]
[/quote]

An ad hominem about smarts from the guy who evidently doesn't even know the terms "masculinity" and "femininity"?

[img]http://cdn1.lostateminor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Glass-House-3.jpg[/img]

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337187573' post='2431282']
I think this statement gets to the heart of what has begun to plague us as a society. I feel like recently we have confined ourselves and our conversations to the law, as though the law is the end of freedom. I have always taken a different approach where I begin with the law, but can think beyond it. I think of the law as the beginning of freedom in a sense.

In more concrete terms, I think that people are unwilling to recognize anything beyond the law or the law's connection to reality, as though it's an arbitrary, heteronomous judgment. Laws, particularly in our country, are meant to help "establish justice" and promote a better society. They are particularly directed to the good of society and should function in that way. We don't have to be limited to the laws. I can think that there is more than what the law offers, but that doesn't mean that the law offers nothing. In this case, while marriage is not what it once was, I still see the law as providing something uniquely valuable for us and for our society.
[/quote]
PROPSAMILLION

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337188134' post='2431290']
Exactly. Hence my mixed feelings.

Ideals can't be all codified into law. I believe the instability of modern marriages has had a huge negative impact on the general welfare of children and society as a whole. [b]I don't think society should do anything to promote the idea that a intra-personal bond is only defined by base civil laws[/b]. However, I think that people who desire to form a union, be it two unmarried siblings, close friends, or homosexual couple should be able to avail themselves of civil protection, rights, and certain benefits. If a couple of sisters who never got married but chose to live together to share their house, finances, and care for each other, they should have a clear and just way to name each other as co-benificiaries and mutual dependents.
[/quote]

Yes I agree with this. The bolded part especially (if you meant "inter" personal bonds *intrapersonal would be inside one's personal realm so I got a bit confuzzled but maybe I'm just being a grammar jerk)

This attitude is actually what I find most alarming, the idea that the government must, should, or even [i]can[/i] actually validate emotional or sexual relationships between adults. The horror! Maybe I've read too many dystopian novels about totalitarian governments but this seems really really wrong to me! My beliefs about homosexuality ASIDE COMPLETELY, the glbt movements and such are basically saying "we want the culture to accept our erotic relationships as valid, ergo, if the government calls it 'marriage' then people will simply HAVE to accept our sexual behaviors as good because the government said so!"

Or course this idea is predicated on the liberal/moderate idea that the government/law is the source of where our rights come from, which is horse manure. Or, more scarily, that the government/law can be used to coerce dissenting belief systems. These people tend to run by the mantra "you can believe whatever you want, but don't force your beliefs on us," which is hypocritical because a) they're imposing a philosophical/moral system onto ME and b) what they really mean is "you can believe whatever you want, but if you don't fall in line, you will not be tolerated. PEACE N TOLERANCE LUVS THE WORLD SO MUCH!!!11!"