Homosexual MARRIAGE

[Victor]

Whether it opens up doors or not. Same sex marriages should be rejected because God instituted for marriage. Not the government.

~Victor

[Didacus]

As you wish:

[quote]Marriage is a social institution that was established by God as and element of human nature. I think that's what q and I are refering to Natural Law. Agree or Disagree?[/quote]

I agree, though I might use different terms to express the same thing. I like your wording none the less and see nothing with which to disagree with your statement.


[quote]Marriage (the social institution) has been built upon and fulfilled by Christ with the endowment of additional graces and can (note 'can') become a Sacrament. Agree or Disagree?[/quote]

I dsagree with the can (note 'can') part. I believe that God intended for marriage to be a sacrament in the sense that it is an institution that is sacred.

Correct me if I am wrong or if you disagree, but regarding marriage as a sacrament is simply acknowledging the sacredness that already existed and given by God since the creation of human as see in the book of Genesis (I think their names where Adam and Gertrude, not sure if I remember that right though).

That is not to say that the sacrament itself is without value. It adds great value in the sense that it confirms the knowledge and obediance to God and the sacredness of the union brougt forth to Him and to all humanity.

I await your response.




PS: and I think that if you deny the sacradness of marriage, either within religion or in goverment, you might as well marry a dog or a cat. If you remove the sacradness of marriage, you are simply embarking on a partnership, or contract, that can have any shape or form to suit your own desires (or whatever you perceive as your 'needs') RATHER than engaging into an institution to produce fruit within creation as humankind has been called to od by The Creator Himself.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 18 2005, 10:18 AM']OK, Jas,
Here's the first of the points I made yesterday:

To which you replied:

So in reply to your answer on this point, I'd say the state most certainly DOES define marriage. I can't see how you'd be able to say it does otherwise. If the state (us) didn't think it could define marriage, there would be no referendum vote -- it wouldn't be up for discussion.
[right][snapback]794079[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sojourner, I respect your point, but I think there's a glaring error in your reasoning here.

First of all, you've never really answered the question of how you think Catholics should vote in such referendums.
There are only two possible outcomes of such a referendum:
A. State law affirms marriage as being between a man and a woman.
B. State law redefines "marriage" to include homosexual unions.

Which would you prefer? Should Christians just abstain from voting on the principle that "the state should not get involved" and allow the "gay" lobby to make the laws of the state?

Secondly, it seems that by your logic here, the state should not make any laws regarding anything moral.

[quote]Once the State thinks it has the right to decide what is true and what is false, it thinks it can become something like a god. This leads to tyranny. Ironically, these tyrannical states usually advocate personal autonomy, thereby equating freedom from limitations as the greatest freedom. [/quote]

If the law can make absolutely no judgements as to what is true and what is false, then it is worthless.
For instance, what basis does the law have for judging one guilty of a crime such as murder? Why have such laws? Who is the state to declare whether killing someone is wrong and to judge people guilty of crime? Doesn't this belong only to God?

Would you be in favor of laws against abortion, or protecting the unborn, or would you say, "what right does the state have to define when life begins and whether it should be protected?"

See the problem? In each issue, the state can either follow God's natural law or it can rule as its own "god," making decisions contrary to God and to natural law.

Ruling that marriage can only be between man and woman simply affirms natural law (and Catholic teaching). (As do laws protecting the life of the innocent.)

Ruling that marriage can be redefined to include homosexual "unions" is contrary to natural law.

The law must make moral decisions all the time. It cannot exist entirely outside of morality.

Edited November 19, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

Sojourner, I wrote a rather lengthy reply to some of your arguments regarding this issue in the other "gay marriage" thread, but I'm not sure if you saw it, as last night it got buried under a lot of garbage.

I hope you can take the time to read it.

[Jaime]

[quote]If the law can make absolutely no judgements as to what is true and what is false, then it is worthless.
For instance, what basis does the law have for judging one guilty of a crime such as murder? Why have such laws? Who is the state to declare whether killing someone is wrong and to judge people guilty of crime? Doesn't this belong only to God?[/quote]

What I've been trying to say (and I think what Abby is saying) is that the government can and should create laws to support and defend marriage. But that government should not make laws that define or (and more importantly) create marriage.

That is the difference between the issue of marriage and the issue of murder or abortion. The government does not create life but it is responsible to defend it. The government should not create marriages and yet it does. And it does to society's detriment.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 18 2005, 08:18 PM']Sojourner,  I respect your point, but I think there's a glaring error in your reasoning here.

First of all, you've never really answered the question of how you think Catholics should vote in such referendums.
There are only two possible outcomes of such a referendum:
A.  State law affirms marriage as being between a man and a woman.
B.  State law redefines "marriage" to include homosexual unions.
[right][snapback]794754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I realize I haven't made a definitive statement on this question as of yet, although I did vote in both this poll and the other one. I haven't yet gotten past, "Why are we ASKING this question in the first place? Does the state have the right to even [i]consider[/i] changing the definition of marriage?" In other words, the question as posed begs the questions of 1) the nature of marriage and 2) the nature of the authority of church and state. You're making the assumption that the state is perfectly within its rights to consider redefining marriage, and I assert that it is not.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 18 2005, 08:18 PM']Secondly, it seems that by your logic here, the state should not make any laws regarding anything moral.
If the law can make absolutely no judgements as to what is true and what is false, then it is worthless.
For instance, what basis does the law have for judging one guilty of a crime such as murder?  Why have such laws?  Who is the state to declare whether killing someone is wrong and to judge people guilty of crime?  Doesn't this belong only to God?

Would you be in favor of laws against abortion, or protecting the unborn, or would you say, "what right does the state have to define when life begins and whether it should be protected?"
[right][snapback]794754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's one thing to make judgements about right and wrong. It's another to DEFINE right and wrong. I have no problem with the state making judgements about right and wrong -- that clearly falls within the state's authority. Determining the definition of right and wrong is another matter altogether.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 19 2005, 11:09 AM']I realize I haven't made a definitive statement on this question as of yet, although I did vote in both this poll and the other one. I haven't yet gotten past, "Why are we ASKING this question in the first place? Does the state have the right to even [i]consider[/i] changing the definition of marriage?" In other words, the question as posed begs the questions of 1) the nature of marriage and 2) the nature of the authority of church and state. You're making the assumption that the state is perfectly within its rights to consider redefining marriage, and I assert that it is not.
It's one thing to make judgements about right and wrong. It's another to DEFINE right and wrong. I have no problem with the state making judgements about right and wrong -- that clearly falls within the state's authority. Determining the definition of right and wrong is another matter altogether.
[right][snapback]795085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The reason this question is being asked is quite simply because homosexual activists are demanding legal "marriage rights."
I say it is the duty of Christians to say "No."

You and Jaimie, thouh you say you've voted in this poll, have thus far (unless I've missed it, in which case I apologize) avoided saying how Catholics should vote in such referendums.

You haven't explained to my satisfaction how voting against "gay marriage" will weaken the sacrament of marriage or increase the power of the state.
You've made it clear that you are against any civil marriages, but you've never really expalined how limiting them to man and woman, rather than bestowing marriage benefits on "gays" increases the "state's power over marriage."

I'd agree that it is unfortunate that states are even debating allowing "gay marriage," but it would seem obvious to me how Catholics ought to vote on this issue. Unfortunately, you and Jaimie have never made this clear.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 19 2005, 07:15 PM']The reason this question is being asked is quite simply because homosexual activists are demanding legal "marriage rights."
I say it is the duty of Christians to say "No."

You and Jaimie, thouh you say you've voted in this poll, have thus far (unless I've missed it, in which case I apologize) avoided saying how Catholics should vote in such referendums.

You haven't explained to my satisfaction how voting against "gay marriage" will weaken the sacrament of marriage or increase the power of the state. 
You've made it clear that you are against any civil marriages, but you've never really expalined how limiting them to man and woman, rather than bestowing marriage benefits on "gays" increases the "state's power over marriage."

I'd agree that it is unfortunate that states are even debating allowing "gay marriage,"  but it would seem obvious to me how Catholics ought to vote on this issue.  Unfortunately, you and Jaimie have never made this clear.
[right][snapback]795394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Socrates, I've explained why I haven't voiced my opinions publicly yet. I'm fairly certain that hot stuff has said how he's voted, although I'll let him answer that himself, if he so chooses. I personally am still interested in further discussing the precedent issues before coming to a conclusion. If you're not willing to do so, then you're just going to have to wait until we get to the conclusion part of the discussion.

[Jaime]

[quote]Unfortunately, you and Jaimie have never made this clear.
[/quote]

You're brighter than this Soc.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 19 2005, 09:57 PM']Socrates, I've explained why I haven't voiced my opinions publicly yet. I'm fairly certain that hot stuff has said how he's voted, although I'll let him answer that himself, if he so chooses. I personally am still interested in further discussing the precedent issues before coming to a conclusion. If you're not willing to do so, then you're just going to have to wait until we get to the conclusion part of the discussion.
[right][snapback]795475[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 19 2005, 11:10 PM']You're brighter than this Soc.
[right][snapback]795504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm honestly confused.

Why the games and evasiveness?

Sojourner, I'm afraid I've missed why you haven't given your opinions publicly. (Maybe I'll look back again, but that was a very long and concoluted thread.) But you began by saying you agreed with hot stuff.
hot stuff began by seemingly saying we could not vote against gay marriage because he claimed (absurdly) that the first amendment of the Constitution forbade such a vote.
I thoroughly demolished this skewed argument (based on a radical secularist misinterpretation), showing how the first amendment forbids no such thing.
After this, hot stuff changed the subject to talking about why he was against civil marriages (and then said he was against "gay marriage").

Still, the question is avoided of how Catholics should vote on such a referendum.
I've been straight out and said how Catholics should vote, as have JasJis, Didacus, and others.

Why can't you two do the same?

So far the best I can gather is seems your position on voting is "allowing gay marriage is wrong, but it is wrong to vote against it."

If you have a position on how to vote, state it. But I'm tired of this evasiveness and playing guessing games.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Socrates

[Jaime]

I'm tired of the intentional bullheadedness frankly.

You asked three times on the other thread. I've answered it directly all three times. The last time with a one word answer. I will not do it again. The only way you would not get what my response was would be by not reading.

There is no evasiveness going on.

Edited November 20, 2005 by jaime

[benedict_x]

Ah, debates on Homosexuality.

Things never change in PM.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 20 2005, 12:00 AM']Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm honestly confused. 

Why the games and evasiveness? 

Sojourner, I'm afraid I've missed why you haven't given your opinions publicly.  (Maybe I'll look back again, but that was a very long and concoluted thread.)
[right][snapback]795554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Socrates, here's what I just said a couple of posts ago on this thread:
[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 19 2005, 11:09 AM']I realize I haven't made a definitive statement on this question as of yet, although I did vote in both this poll and the other one. I haven't yet gotten past, "Why are we ASKING this question in the first place? Does the state have the right to even [i]consider[/i] changing the definition of marriage?" In other words, the question as posed begs the questions of 1) the nature of marriage and 2) the nature of the authority of church and state. You're making the assumption that the state is perfectly within its rights to consider redefining marriage, and I assert that it is not.
[right][snapback]795085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'll try to make this a little clearer. I'm not willing to state a conclusion until we've explored the underlying issues that would properly support a conclusion. I don't understand why you're having such trouble grasping this, unless you're just not reading my posts.

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 20 2005, 12:13 AM']I'm tired of the intentional bullheadedness frankly.

You asked three times on the other thread.  I've answered it directly all three times.  The last time with a one word answer.  I will not do it again. The only way you would not get what my response was would be by not reading.

There is no evasiveness going on.
[right][snapback]795567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I laughed out loud at this. You missed your calling to either be a lawyer, politician, or parent.

I've had a busy weekend. I'll post more later when I'm back at work and have more free time. I've become very interested in exploring this with Soj. (Soc, I don't think she's provided an answer).

[Jaime]

Laugh all you want.


You and Soc are the only two that can't understand my position