Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1004160' date='Jun 12 2006, 07:24 PM']
In itself it does not. Sacramental marriage goes beyond natural law, being a supernatural institution.

Franimus, Aloysius, and others have answered this quite well. I have little to add.
[/quote]


Really?

Civil marriage does not require any permanence. It is a contract that can be dissolved. Aquinas makes it clear that permanence, by virtue of natural law, is integral to the definition of marriage

[quote]I answer that, By the intention of nature marriage is directed to the rearing of the offspring, not merely for a time, but throughout its whole life. Hence it is of natural law that parents should lay up for their children, and that children should be their parents' heirs (2 Corinthians 12:14). Therefore, since the offspring is the common good of husband and wife, the dictate of the natural law requires the latter to live together for ever inseparably: [b]and so the indissolubility of marriage is of natural law[/b].[/quote]


Civil marriage does not require the creation of offspring. Again back to Aquinas

[quote]On the contrary, At the commencement of the Digests it is stated: "The union of male and female, which we call matrimony, is of natural law."

Further, the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12) says that "man is an animal more inclined by nature to connubial than political society." But "man is naturally a political and gregarious animal," as the same author asserts (Polit. i, 2). Therefore he is naturally inclined to connubial union, and thus the conjugal union or matrimony is natural.

I answer that, A thing is said to be natural in two ways. First, as resulting of necessity from the principles of nature; thus upward movement is natural to fire. In this way matrimony is not natural, nor are any of those things that come to pass at the intervention or motion of the free-will. Secondly, that is said to be natural to which nature inclines although it comes to pass through the intervention of the free-will; thus acts of virtue and the virtues themselves are called natural; and in this way matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines thereto in two ways. First, in relation to the principal end of matrimony, namely the good of the offspring. For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11,12), we derive three things from our parents, namely "existence," "nourishment," and "education." Now a child cannot be brought up and instructed unless it have certain and definite parents, and this would not be the case unless there were a tie between the man and a definite woman and it is in this that matrimony consists. Secondly, in relation to the secondary end of matrimony, which is the mutual services which married persons render one another in household matters. For just as natural reason dictates that men should live together, since one is not self-sufficient in all things concerning life, for which reason man is described as being naturally inclined to political society, so too among those works that are necessary for human life some are becoming to men, others to women. Wherefore nature inculcates that society of man and woman which consists in matrimony. These two reasons are given by the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11,12). [/quote]


If these two principles are integral to the definition of marriage by virtue of natural law, any definition that excludes these, contradicts natural law.


This is why I'm against civil marriage. This is why I'm against the marriage amendment as it stands.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1000947' date='Jun 8 2006, 08:14 PM']


On these boards you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a sham, and little more than a "Catholic" apologist for a liberal social agenda.
(While you claim to support the Church's teachings, you consistantly and vehemently attack any and all attempts to restrict the homosexualist agenda, or promote Christian values in public.)
[/quote]


[quote name='Socrates' post='1004119' date='Jun 12 2006, 06:44 PM']
Look pal, I don't give a rat's rear-end how far back you and hot stuff go, you have no right to slander me by false accusations of dishonesty, plagiarism, and lying.

Here's where I first brought up the Pope Benedict XVI quote in question:

(post #24) See for yourself: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=53273&view=findpost&p=1000854"]Original post here[/url]

[b]1) Note that the quoted section was in quotation marks.
2) Note that I posted a link to the original article directly after the quote! Anyone could check the source with a single click![/b]

I did absolutely nothing to try to make readers think I had directly interviewed the Pope nor did I take credit for writing the article itself!

My profuse apologies for giving a direct link to the original source, rather than taking the time to write out a Turabian-style footnote!

Your methods would be laughable if they were not so despicable.
You have shown yourself uncapable of actual debate, but have only made a series of ludicrous and slanderous false accusations, which have contributed nothing whatsoever to this debate.

And surely the self-proclaimed "Lord and Master of Orthodoxy" must know that slander is a mortal sin! (As is blasphemy.)

Until you repent, and I receive word of an apology for your slander, you shall remain on "ignore."
May God have mercy on your soul.
[/quote]

Well first, if its in print, its libel

Second of all, I find it a bit odd that you are so offended that you require an apology yet you feel completely justified in making offensive statements that are based on nothing.



I just noticed a little hypocracy in action.

[Aloysius]

hot stuff, you have done nothing but prove that divorce should be illegal. yes, it should, and in most Catholic countries it used to be. divorce is contrary to natural law, not the recognition of a marriage by the state.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1004289' date='Jun 12 2006, 10:20 PM']
hot stuff, you have done nothing but prove that divorce should be illegal. yes, it should, and in most Catholic countries it used to be. divorce is contrary to natural law, not the recognition of a marriage by the state.
[/quote]

I've done more than that Al.

Civil marriage by definition allows for divorce. Civil marriage does not require any type of permanence. Nor does it require anyone to be open to children.

Both are against the definition of marriage according to natural law.

[Aloysius]

therefore, civil marriage should require permanence and the sale of contraceptives should be illegal and made difficult to obtain.

it is a tremendous jump from "here are the parts of current civil marriage legislation that do not jive with natural law" to "civil marriage is against natural law"

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1004441' date='Jun 13 2006, 03:03 AM']
therefore, civil marriage should require permanence and the sale of contraceptives should be illegal and made difficult to obtain.

it is a tremendous jump from "here are the parts of current civil marriage legislation that do not jive with natural law" to "civil marriage is against natural law"
[/quote]

Would it be a tremendous jump to say to someone "A person is not Catholic if they don't believe in the dogma of the Eucharist"? Or would you prefer to say that there were parts of his belief that did not jive with Church teaching? If someone does not recognize what is integral to Catholicism (i.e. Eucharist) then that person is not considered Catholic.

If natural law states that there are criteria that are integral and necessary to the definition of marriage, you cannot define marriage without them. To do so contradicts natural law.

[Franimus]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1004481' date='Jun 13 2006, 08:01 AM']
Would it be a tremendous jump to say to someone "A person is not Catholic if they don't believe in the dogma of the Eucharist"? Or would you prefer to say that there were parts of his belief that did not jive with Church teaching? If someone does not recognize what is integral to Catholicism (i.e. Eucharist) then that person is not considered Catholic.

If natural law states that there are criteria that are integral and necessary to the definition of marriage, you cannot define marriage without them. To do so contradicts natural law.
[/quote]

That does not mean that that person's beliefs completely contradict Catholicism. The Church has been telling us recently to focus on what we have in common with others, and to build up from there. As long as Marriage is allowed in marriage (note capitalization difference), marriage cannot be said to contradict the definition of Marriage. To contra-dict something is to completely go against what is said by something else. marriage does [u]not[/u] completely go against Marriage. marriage still incorporates Marriage, and thus does not contradict it. However, that does not mean that marriage is Marriage. Marriage and marriage are not supposed to be exactly the same thing; civil governments cannot require a sacrament. As I mentioned in my previous post (have you even read it?), we must do all we can to further the Truth, even if it's only a baby step. Talk to a pro-life federation representative, they'll explain to you how they don't push for the immediate outlaw of all abortion; rather, they spend all their energy actively pursuing "smaller" objectives, such as outlawing partial-birth abortion. Rome wasn't built in a day. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. What other platitudes can I use? The point is, it's stupid to be against this amendment because it doesn't say enough. You go ahead and push for an amendment that expresses the perminance of marriage, but you're not going to get it any time before the amendment we're discussing gets passed.
Please give specific, linear reasons for your statements. I think that I have provided a linear argument several times for what I have said, and all you say is "you're wrong" without offering good reasons why.

[Apotheoun]

The proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage is not controversial at all, and in fact it has received support from the USCCB for several years now:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-128a.pdf"][u]Letter of Bishop Wilton D. Gregory to the United States Senate[/u][/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1004196' date='Jun 12 2006, 07:17 PM']
Really?

Civil marriage does not require any permanence. It is a contract that can be dissolved. Aquinas makes it clear that permanence, by virtue of natural law, is integral to the definition of marriage
Civil marriage does not require the creation of offspring. Again back to Aquinas
If these two principles are integral to the definition of marriage by virtue of natural law, any definition that excludes these, contradicts natural law.
This is why I'm against civil marriage. This is why I'm against the marriage amendment as it stands.
[/quote]
The marriage amendment says nothing about divorce, etc. one way or the other. All it does is define [i]who[/i] can legally get married (restricting it to one man and one woman).
If you want to work to outlaw divorce, that is fine and good, but it really has nothing to do with this particular proposed amendment.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1004653' date='Jun 13 2006, 10:25 AM']
The proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage is not controversial at all, and in fact it has received support from the USCCB for several years now:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-128a.pdf"][u]Letter of Bishop Wilton D. Gregory to the United States Senate[/u][/url]
[/quote]
Thanks for the link, Todd.

So much for the amendment being contrary to the Church . . .

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1004998' date='Jun 13 2006, 05:55 PM']
The marriage amendment says nothing about divorce, etc. one way or the other. All it does is define [i]who[/i] can legally get married (restricting it to one man and one woman).
If you want to work to outlaw divorce, that is fine and good, but it really has nothing to do with this particular proposed amendment.
Thanks for the link, Todd.

So much for the amendment being contrary to the Church . . .
[/quote]

Ok let's just pause for a moment and reflect on this. Not only is Socrates showing support for the USCCB but he universalizes their statement to that of being for the whole Church.

I need to freeze frame this moment.


Of course Socrates has been a long time supporter of the US bishops..

Right?

[quote name='Socrates' post='879525' date='Feb 7 2006, 07:10 PM']
The USCCB has long been notoriously liberal.
[/quote]

But he does believe that when the USCCB speaks, it speaks for Holy Mother Church...


Right?

[quote name='Socrates' post='879525' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:00 PM']

The USCCB's left-leaning political agenda is hardly infallible.
[/quote]




[quote name='Socrates' post='778238' date='Nov 3 2005, 07:33 PM']


As for the USCCB quotes, it should be pointed out that the USCCB is not the same as the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church, and its statements are not infallable. It is well known that the USCCB leans left politically and has ties to the Democratic Party. Lately the American Bishops as a group have hardly been a model of wise and moral leadership (though there are a few excellent bishops).
[/quote]

[quote name='Socrates' post='778238' date='May 17 2005, 11:21 AM']


Personally, I think the USCCB is way, way too far to the left. Remember, the USSCB is not the same as the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and its pronouncements are far from infallible. Unfortunately, the USCCB tends to be overly influenced by the politics of the Left.


[/quote]

Ok then..


Now let's look at the letter shall we?

[quote]Marriage, as properly understood, is more than a lifestyle choice. It is an interpersonalrelationship with public significance. It makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to thecommon good of society when it fulfills its natural, God-given purposes, namely, to bring children into the world and care for them and to provide a way for a man and a woman to seekeach other's good in a committed, lifetime relationship.[/quote]

Hmmm and what did I say?

[quote]Civil marriage by definition allows for divorce. Civil marriage does not require any type of permanence. Nor does it require anyone to be open to children.

Both are against the definition of marriage according to natural law.[/quote]


So yeah the bishops are for it. And as Socrates has so graciously pointed out, (over and over again) the USCCB is apparently not the Magisterium. So they aren't infallible. So I can disagree with them?

Well in reality, I don't.

I'm pretty sure that if you asked any bishop if permanence and being open to procreation is intrinsic to the definition of marriage according to the Church and natural law, they'd agree with me! Oh wait, they already did!

The marriage amendment only deals with civil marriage. If civil marriage is improperly defined, then so is the amendment.

[homeschoolmom]

Shhh... I'm pausing

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1005029' date='Jun 13 2006, 06:07 PM']
Ok let's just pause for a moment and reflect on this. Not only is Socrates showing support for the USCCB but he universalizes their statement to that of being for the whole Church.

I need to freeze frame this moment.
Of course Socrates has been a long time supporter of the US bishops..

Right?
But he does believe that when the USCCB speaks, it speaks for Holy Mother Church...
Right?
Ok then..
Now let's look at the letter shall we?
Hmmm and what did I say?
[/quote]
Really, this is too funny.

I nowhere claimed the USCCB was infallible in its statements (especially when concerning economic/spending policy issues not directly related to faith and morals). However, this does not mean the USCCB is [i]never[/i] right. The Bishops can and do speak correctly on a number of things, especially when speaking in union with the Pope's teaching. And in this case, the Bishops are correct.
My point was simply that one cannot present the marriage amendment as being intrinsically [b]opposed[/b] to Catholic teaching, and argue that Catholics are bound in conscience to oppose it.

It is you, hot stuff, who have dug yourself in a hole by (as far as I understand) claiming that Catholics are bound to agree with every policy statement of the USCCB, then disagreeing with them on this one!

For those who did not bother to open the PDF document of Bishop Gregory's letter earlier quoted by Apotheoun, here's the first part of it:
[quote]Dear Senator:

I write on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to urge your support for S.J. Res. 30, the Federal Marriage Amendment. As you know, S.J. Res. 30 would amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman. The Senate Majority Leader has indicated his intention to bring S.J. Res. 30 before the Senate in mid-July. However, opponents may mount a filibuster that could prevent the Senate from even considering this important measure. [b]The Catholic Bishops of the United States strongly urge you to vote AGAINST any effort that would prevent the Senate from voting on this important measure, as well as to vote FOR the measure once the Senate takes it up.[/b] Our concern for preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman is not simply a Catholic concern. We share it with believers and non-believers, Christians and non-Christians alike, simply because this understanding is part of the common moral heritage of humanity. It is precisely this moral heritage that must be protected today from a small but vocal minority that would alter the definition of marriage by making same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage. A same-sex union is not equivalent to marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; it cannot be a true conjugal union.[/quote]
You read this correctly, folks, the Bishops supported the Marriage Amendment!

Which you yourself concede:
[quote]So yeah the bishops are for it.[/quote]

[quote]So I can disagree with them?

Well in reality, I don't.[/quote]
Oh really, now?

[quote]I'm pretty sure that if you asked any bishop if permanence and being open to procreation is intrinsic to the definition of marriage according to the Church and natural law, they'd agree with me! Oh wait, they already did!

The marriage amendment only deals with civil marriage. If civil marriage is improperly defined, then so is the amendment.[/quote]
But the amendment in question says nothing one way or the other about being open to procreation, so this is beside the point. The amendment, as Bishop Gregory states, would "define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."

If this is so contrary to natural law and the Church as you claim, why didn't the Good Bishops oppose it, rather than support it???

But you try to have it both ways, by claiming that the Bishops were right to support the amendment, but at the same time arguing that supporting the amendment is wrong.

It's really amusing how you contradict yourself to try to get out of the little hole you dug for yourself here. May as well give it up!

Edited June 14, 2006 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote]It is you, hot stuff, who have dug yourself in a whole by (as far as I understand) claiming that Catholics are bound to agree with every policy statement of the USCCB, then disagreeing with them on this one![/quote]

Yeah I'm in a(w)hole...

and if the (w)hole is as far as you understand,seriously, how deep could it be by those standards?


[quote]If this is so contrary to natural law and the Church as you claim, why didn't the Good Bishops oppose it, rather than supporting it???[/quote]

Ok just to be able to force you to make a statement using the adjective "good" to describe an american bishop (and you capitalize it no less) is worth the effort.

Next round is on me kids! Its celebration time!



[quote]The amendment, as Bishop Gregory states, would "define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."[/quote]

Exactly

It would define marriage

And it would define marriage incorrectly.

The good bishop goes on to accurately define marriage. (as I quoted) And it does not match civil marriage, DOMA nor the marriage amendment. Which has supported my opinion. The bishops are likely operating along the same line of thought as Era Might suggests. But if a law contradicts natural law, its a bad law.



Come on Soc, you love the Angelic Doctor of the Church as much as anyone. Right? So what does that mean when Aquinas defines marriage, by natural law no less, to have to include permanence and an openness to procreation?

Any definition without these components is in error. Unless in your sudden shift of love and adoration for the USCCB has soured you on Aquinas.

Any law that contradicts natural law corrupts. Civil marriage, DOMA and the proposed amendment do not currently hold the intrinsic components of marriage and therefore contradict natural law.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1005074' date='Jun 13 2006, 07:38 PM']
Yeah I'm in a(w)hole...

and if the (w)hole is as far as you understand,seriously, how deep could it be by those standards?
Ok just to be able to force you to make a statement using the adjective "good" to describe an american bishop (and you capitalize it no less) is worth the effort.

Next round is on me kids! Its celebration time!
Exactly

It would define marriage

And it would define marriage incorrectly.

The good bishop goes on to accurately define marriage. (as I quoted) And it does not match civil marriage, DOMA nor the marriage amendment. Which has supported my opinion. The bishops are likely operating along the same line of thought as Era Might suggests. But if a law contradicts natural law, its a bad law.
Come on Soc, you love the Angelic Doctor of the Church as much as anyone. Right? So what does that mean when Aquinas defines marriage, by natural law no less, to have to include permanence and an openness to procreation?

Any definition without these components is in error. Unless in your sudden shift of love and adoration for the USCCB has soured you on Aquinas.

Any law that contradicts natural law corrupts. Civil marriage, DOMA and the proposed amendment do not currently hold the intrinsic components of marriage and therefore contradict natural law.
[/quote]
Basically, you are admitting that you disagree with the Bishops on their endorsement of this amendment. At least it appears you now agree with me that Catholics are not bound to follow every political endorsement of the USCCB as infallible dogma. You might want to remember that the next time you insinuate that one is not being a loyal Catholic because he disagrees with a USCCB statement regarding welfare spending, or opposes Card. Mahoney's views on immigration laws.

However, I still believe the Bishops are right and you are wrong on this one.
All this amendment does is restrict marriage to that between a man and a woman.
It is not intended to be a complete definition of marriage, not even in the strictly legal sense - it does not go into what this union between a man and a woman entails legally.
All it does is say that only one man and one woman may be married to one another. And that is perfectly in accord with natural law. That is why it was endorsed by the Bishops without hesitation or reservation.

All your objections are based on things extraneous to the amendment.
This particular amendment does not in any way [b]deny[/b] the procreative aspects or permanence of marriage - as that is outside its scope.
If the amendment did deny these things, the Bishops would not have so adamently supported it.
If these things are so important to you, maybe you should work to have amendments passed against divorce, etc. They would in no way contradict this amendment!

It seems at this point you are really arguing just to be stubborn - I have seen no reputable Catholic authorities argue against the amendment that way - it is nothing but your own personal opinion, which you are entitled to, but that does not mean it is correct.

This amendment would not harm marriage in any way, but only prevent activist judges from further pushing "gay marriage" on the states as a "constitutional right."

I think all that needs to be said has been said here, and unless something new is brought to this debate, I am finished arguing.

[ironmonk]

To disagree with the bishops opinion's is one thing.

To be disobediant to them is a sin. (Unless they directly go against the Magisterium)

God Bless,
ironmonk