Homosexual MARRIAGE

[jasJis]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Nov 21 2005, 08:48 PM'][quote name='jasJis']Government's role is to protect and support basic morality[/quote]

I don't think it's the government's place to be even talking about morality. Basing laws on someone's idea of morality is what a theocracy is about. While I'm sure some of you would probably not mind living in a catholic theocracy, I doubt you would like a protestant one. And that's what's going to happen, if you advocate for a theocracy.

How would you like if we put under vote whether to allow some catholic stuff to be practiced? If you give the government the power to force your morals on rest of the society, then sooner or later you might find the rest of the society forcing their morals on you. Since catholics are a minority that would happen at some point.
[right][snapback]797161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Ha, ha, ha. The joke is on you. This Country is built on morality. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." Morality is order and heirachy of 'right' as compared to anarchy, chaos, or barbaric survival of the fittest. It is cvilization.

[Jaime]

[quote]You completely ignored what I've written and you have comprehensively misrepresented almost everything I've said with your post above. Like I said earlier, let's drop our communication on this subject in this thread.[/quote]

How in the world could I have misrepresented what you've said with one statement?

[quote]And check out the arguments. The "I'm personally opposed" argument is being used by Jas in support of civil marriages[/quote]

I know I can be pithy but I was able to comprehensively misrepresent with that?

You're not personally opposed to civil marriages? You support them?


Soc

I will take you at your word that there is a genuine misunderstanding here.

[quote]You then said you were against "gay marriages" and gave more about why you were against any civil marriages in the first place, yet it remains unclear whether you still believe the constitution (or whatever) prevents us from voting against "gay marriage."
[/quote]

If I was against gay marriage (and I am) why would it be unclear where I think Catholics should vote?

This is why I thought you were being purposefully bullheaded

You asked

[quote]hot stuff, (setting aside your other opinions on marriage and the state) do you agree that Catholics should vote against "gay marriage"?

[/quote]

I answered

[quote]yes[/quote]

[TheoGrad07]

Jas-
Marriage is an objective reality, part of the natural law. Malenesss and femaleness are ontological realities; we can't "escape" them. It's written into our very biology that we're made for each other. But sexuality is not merely biology: it is essentially part of us, ontologically, who we are. Sex is not simply an accident, like hair color. (Complicated: nor is sex on the same level as the rational soul, which separates us from animals, for then male and female would be two separate species: not possible, since "species" is that which can procreate. St. Thomas' "essential accident" is the best description of sex -- it maeks up our nature but not at the most foundational level.) As C.S. Lewis said in his essay "Priestesses in the Church," -- "we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyound our control and largely beyound our direct knowledge" and again "we have no authority to take the living and seminal figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were geometrical figures."

But not all "marriages" are marriages: to be a true marriage (natural or supernatural), it must have the four characteristics I've mentioned before. This can be demonstrated by reason and presupposes the "personalist norm" of John Paul II: every human being is a PERSON of inviolable dignity; therefore, no human being can be treated as an object. (To show this, pretend to line up a great variety of people, old, young, healthy, sick, etc. Then ask someone who should be treated as a PERSON and who as an object ... if they say some should be treated as an object, ask why do they get to make that decision? Who sets the standards of "personhood" if it doesn't apply to every human being?)

A very brief (and therefore probably open to much criticism) summary of the logic follows:
**Presupposition: Every human being is a PERSON having inviolable dignity and must not be treated as an object.
**One's spouse is not an object that can be replaced, but a person to be treasured according to his/her inviolable dignity and individuality. Therefore, a true marriage must be PERMANENT.
**Similarly, marriage must be EXCLUSIVE, because to go outside the marriage (particularly concerning the conjugal act) implies insufficiency in one's spouse and that one's spouse can be replaced.
**Because one's spouse is not an object but a person, he/she is not simply for one's gratification; thus marriage must be PROCREATIVE (in the sense that every conjugal act must be open to a third -- to the possibility that God could create new life, the gift of a child, since the child is not an object to which the couple has a right -- this doesn't mean sex always must produce a baby; NFP is allowed, but that's a different topic). Sex without procreativity is simply mutual masturbation.
**Because marriage must be procreative, it must be HETEROSEXUAL, since homosexual "unions" have no possibility of new life.

That's a rough sketch, but hopefully you get the idea. This shows, based on reason and nature, what a true marriage is and that it is in the natural law. Sacramental marriage builds on this, by adding the supernatural grace connected to it when the couple fulfills the laws prescribed by the Chruch (... matter and form of the sacrament ...).

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 21 2005, 09:45 PM']Soc

I will take you at your word that there is a genuine misunderstanding here. 
If I was against gay marriage (and I am) why would it be unclear where I think Catholics should vote? 

This is why I thought you were being purposefully bullheaded

You asked
I answered
[right][snapback]797236[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Fair enough, I stand corrected. You were just saying so many different things in the thread that it was kind of hard to follow exactly where you stood. (Mostly because of the lines about the First Amendment "standing in your way.")

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Nov 21 2005, 08:48 PM'][quote name='jasJis']Government's role is to protect and support basic morality[/quote]

I don't think it's the government's place to be even talking about morality. Basing laws on someone's idea of morality is what a theocracy is about. [right][snapback]797161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Except for some zoning laws, please show me a law that is not based on someone's morality.

[TheoGrad07]

Norseman82,Nov 21 2005, 11:08 PM
"'I don't think it's the government's place to be even talking about morality. Basing laws on someone's idea of morality is what a theocracy is about.'

"Except for some zoning laws, please show me a law that is not based on someone's morality."

LOL ... even zoning laws are loosely based on morality ... afterall, it's a moral law that says we shouldn't take something against the reasonable will of the owner (stealing) ... zoning laws help protect private property in the sense that lots are fixed, people buy them, and then it's theirs! Yeah ... rather loose connection ... but it's still there! :

It's impossible to separate moral laws from life; they're inextricably intertwined. However ... the question should be who legislates moral laws, for the state can't create morality and it's impossible to have human laws that encompass all the natural moral laws. Thus the order of laws Q and I have referred to before ... human, natural, divine, eternal. Human law must be compatible with natural law (e.g. no killing the innocent) but it's impossible and unwise to attempt to have human law encompass all the natural law ... how can you legislate moderation?

Edited November 22, 2005 by TheoGrad07

[jasJis]

[quote name='TheoGrad07' date='Nov 21 2005, 10:01 PM']Jas-
Marriage is an objective reality, part of the natural law.  Malenesss and femaleness are ontological realities; we can't "escape" them.  It's written into our very biology that we're made for each other.  But sexuality is not merely biology: it is essentially part of us, ontologically, who we are.  Sex is not simply an accident, like hair color.  (Complicated: nor is sex on the same level as the rational soul, which separates us from animals, for then male and female would be two separate species: not possible, since "species" is that which can procreate.  St. Thomas'  "essential accident" is the best description of sex -- it maeks up our nature but not at the most foundational level.)  As C.S. Lewis said in his essay "Priestesses in the Church," --  "we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyound our control and largely beyound our direct knowledge"  and again "we have no authority to take the living and seminal figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were geometrical figures."

But not all "marriages" are marriages: to be a true marriage (natural or supernatural), it must have the four characteristics I've mentioned before.  This can be demonstrated by reason and presupposes the "personalist norm" of John Paul II: every human being is a PERSON of inviolable dignity; therefore, no human being can be treated as an object.  (To show this, pretend to line up a great variety of people, old, young, healthy, sick, etc.  Then ask someone who should be treated as a PERSON and who as an object ... if they say some should be treated as an object, ask why do they get to make that decision?  Who sets the standards of "personhood" if it doesn't apply to every human being?)

A very brief (and therefore probably open to much criticism) summary of the logic follows:
**Presupposition:  Every human being is a PERSON having inviolable dignity and must not be treated as an object.
**One's spouse is not an object that can be replaced, but a person to be treasured according to his/her inviolable dignity and individuality.  Therefore, a true marriage must be PERMANENT.
**Similarly, marriage must be EXCLUSIVE, because to go outside the marriage (particularly concerning the conjugal act) implies insufficiency in one's spouse and that one's spouse can be replaced.
**Because one's spouse is not an object but a person, he/she is not simply for one's gratification; thus marriage must be PROCREATIVE (in the sense that every conjugal act must be open to a third -- to the possibility that God could create new life, the gift of a child, since the child is not an object to which the couple has a right -- this doesn't mean sex always must produce a baby; NFP is allowed, but that's a different topic).  Sex without procreativity is simply mutual masturbation.
**Because marriage must be procreative, it must be HETEROSEXUAL, since homosexual "unions" have no possibility of new life.

That's a rough sketch, but hopefully you get the idea.  This shows, based on reason and nature, what a true marriage is and that it is in the natural law.  Sacramental marriage builds on this, by adding the supernatural grace connected to it when the couple fulfills the laws prescribed by the Chruch (... matter and form of the sacrament ...).
[right][snapback]797257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote] Theo, you ROCK! Though you went farther then the basic definition of marriage (but it illustrates the theme and foundation of marriage). You've encapsulated the idea with you conclusion[b] 'based on reason and nature, [i](you can know)[/i] what a true marriage is and that is in the natural law'.[/b]
peeps...Can we all pretty much agree with this before we continue?

[TheoGrad07]

Basic deffinition of marriage:

A permanent, exclusive, and procreative union between one man and one woman.

:

[Thumper]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 21 2005, 09:37 AM']I'd say marriage was first a sacramental institution, created by God as a means of communicating grace and modeling his relationship with his people. Even in its ungraced state, it still retains something of the ability to model God's relationship with his people.

[right][snapback]796571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sojourner--I like your analogy as well, because it seems to uphold the idea that marriage always has a sacramental nature. That nature can, as you've pointed out, be obscured by sin or by ignorance of God and the Church.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in your view does this differentiate "marriage" (a.k.a. a sacrament of the Church) from civil unions (I won't use the word marriage for these, b/c that seems to confuse the issue)?

It seems to me that as soon as marriage is linked with sacrament--which it is, primordially--then we have to think who is in the business of dispensing sacraments. Obviously the answer to that question is the Church, rather than government.

Government is not in the business of dispensing sacraments, and therefore cannot legislate the creation (or dissolution) of marriage. Government is in the business of making laws that deal with contractual obligations between two parties, including laws that protect and promote those contractual obligations. Therefore government can create "civil unions"; but not "marriages."

TheoGrad and JasJis, this is what I find lacking in your most recent definition of marriage ("A permanent, exclusive, and procreative union between one man and one woman")--it doesn't explicitly recognize the sacramental nature of marriage, and thus it can be confused with a civil union which can essentially create a permanent, exclusive, and procreative union between one man and one woman as well.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Thumper

[rckllnknny]

[snapback]796131[/snapback]%5meets the eye it seems as well.  She seems defiant.  Almost proud of her pregnancy.  What kind of an example is that.
[riB/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='thessalonian' date='Nov 22 2005, 12:50 PM']There is more here than meets the eye it seems as well.  She seems defiant.  Almost proud of her pregnancy.  What kind of an example is that.
[right][snapback]797800[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


the thief that hung on the cross next to jesus got to go...and he didnt even have to go to purgatory.

"especially" catholics??
wtf ever that means..hater.

youre not really makin a good case for yourself right now for judgement anyway..

denying gay people "EQUAL RIGHTS"

what does anybody NOT get about THAT...EQUAL RIGHTS...

"EQUAL RIGHTS"

how is that being ignored??

Edited November 22, 2005 by rckllnknny

[jasJis]

We are defining elements of marriage. Natural Law elements are factual and tied to the nature of man. Marriage as a Sacrament builds upon this. Of course, as Catholics or knowledgeable Christians, all of God's creation is sacramental in a sense as God provides graces through many things. The Natural elements of marriage are true and effacious for all. We'll get to that soon after Soj, and Soc, or others get a chance to read the most recent posts. If you want to add comments out of sequence, jump to the other poll on Homosexual Marriage. Soj and I are trying to sequentially discuss and explore marriage to derive how to apply it as Catholic Americans.

[rckllnknny]

yeah i just noticed that the topic is more about sacramental marriage and civil marriage..

so how about this...
only catholic marriages are "recognized" by God??

..just a sarcastic question..

[jasJis]

rck,
ramble in the other thread, please.

[rckllnknny]

NO. that was pretty rude jas. everyones opinion should be respected and taken in consideratively.

what i got to say should be just as important as yours.
my last reply was straight forward and relative to the topic.

first of all, my first reply was quoted from THIS thread. second of all..im have a strong opinion on how SACRAMENTAL marriage isnt the ONLY marriage God will recognize.

i have RIGHTS too.
just because everyone wants to take them from gay people.
(btw) the topic IS about gay marriages)

Edited November 22, 2005 by rckllnknny

[rckllnknny]

if you want a thread just for soc soj..email them. or explain that in the topic.
thanx.

Edited November 22, 2005 by rckllnknny