Redefining Marriage

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think you missed the point of my post.

I'm sure most people who oppose the homosexual agenda do so for ideological reasons that go beyond "because it's the majority opinion". They may play this card but that's incidental. And the homosexual agenda is not a "faith", its an ideology. And those who oppose it, I would say, generally do so because they perceive it's values as a threat to the common good.

You over simplify the issues. And the responsibilities of our government go far beyond the scope of a simple, reductionism or merely catering to the strongest lobbying forces.

So you are saying that it goes beyond religion. But no matter what you call it, the ideologies are going to differ. Many homosexuals feel they are biologically set, and even science has shown this. Are you arguing that homosexuals are necessarily going to be vicimizers? What do you base this on other than your bad experiences? It appears that you are too emotionally involved in this to be objective and the media's portrayal of the gay man is of no benefit to you or any other dissenters. I don't see how legalizing homosexual marriage is a threat to the common good. So I disagree because I would bet that it's more than just an ideology and that there are actual good gay legitiamate people out there. In fact I know of some.

Edited February 13, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jasJis]

Many homosexuals feel they are biologically set, and even science has shown this

It's a theory, not proven.

Even the theory recognizes that those thought to be 'biologically set' are less than 2% of the population. So how do you account for the other 85+% of 'gay' people? For them, it's not biological, so it must be cultural.

Homo marriages puts homosexuality into the catagory of a 'normal' choice. It makes society accept it and removes the criterea of homosexuality being 'biological'. Science will show you that the vast majority of 'gay' behaviour is based on sociaological environment issues, not the possibility of it being biological.

the biological exception does not make a rule for the majority.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

I don't know whether or not this is biological, but does it really matter? All people are called to be chaste, within and without marriage, no matter what his orientation. Sexual expression was designed by God for within marriage and was ordained in the beginning as between one man and one woman, forever. Anything outside of that is a sin. That means that even if you change the names or definitions, there is only one true thing. It would be the equivalent of common law marriages -- people who live together but aren't married are called married even though the relationship is not within the bounds of what 'marriage' is.

Honestly, I don't think that legalizing gay marriage is going to hurt anyone, but I think it is morally wrong and so I am against it. If it weren't wrong, then I wouldn't wouldn't be against it b/c I would want homosexual people to be happy. But sometimes you have to choose between being happy and being moral.

[jasJis]

I don't know whether or not this is biological, but does it really matter? All people are called to be chaste, within and without marriage, no matter what his orientation. Sexual expression was designed by God for within marriage and was ordained in the beginning as between one man and one woman, forever. Anything outside of that is a sin. That means that even if you change the names or definitions, there is only one true thing. It would be the equivalent of common law marriages -- people who live together but aren't married are called married even though the relationship is not within the bounds of what 'marriage' is.

Honestly, I don't think that legalizing gay marriage is going to hurt anyone, but I think it is morally wrong and so I am against it. If it weren't wrong, then I wouldn't wouldn't be against it b/c I would want homosexual people to be happy. But sometimes you have to choose between being happy and being moral.

If there is not harm, there is not foul.

Morality defines who get's hurt and how. If nobody get's hurt, it's morally neutral. You can't have it both ways. (Moral vs Harmless)

[PatrickRitaMichael]

I guess you're right. It hurts God.

But I meant it more in a physical way, as in, 'no one will die' if marriage is redefined.

[Laudate_Dominum]

So you are saying that it goes beyond religion. But no matter what you call it, the ideologies are going to differ. Many homosexuals feel they are biologically set, and even science has shown this. Are you arguing that homosexuals are necessarily going to be vicimizers? What do you base this on other than your bad experiences? It appears that you are too emotionally involved in this to be objective and the media's portrayal of the gay man is of no benefit to you or any other dissenters. I don't see how legalizing homosexual marriage is a threat to the common good. So I disagree because I would bet that it's more than just an ideology and that there are actual good gay legitiamate people out there. In fact I know of some.

Arrgh.. This is silly.

"It appears that you are too emotionally involved in this to be objective and the media's portrayal of the gay man is of no benefit to you or any other dissenters."

You don't know what you are talking about. That's quite a judgement to draw from one statement that you in fact misunderstood.

And what are you talking about? The media's portrayal? I'm a dissenter now? Could you explain that?

About the rest of your post, Jas answered the first statement. The second thing: no I'm not arguing that homosexuals are necessarily going to be victimizers, I've already explained that that my earlier statement wasn't intended to be an argument at all. If I was going to argue that rampant homosexuality breeds socially destructive elements I would do so with sociological statistics and things not an appeal to my own bad experiences.

Third thing. Of course there are good, well meaning homosexuals etc. etc.

The question is not whether there are individual homosexuals with good intentions but whether or not a homosexual relationship is capable of having the status of a marriage. The first thing that needs to be identified is what marriage is exactly.

Since our post-sexual revolution society's fundamental concepts of human sexuality, marriage and family are pretty confused it has become possible to bring forth such questions at all. Much of the opposition is based on the fact that many people consider homosexual acts to be self-evidently unnatural and offensive (the buzzword for this is 'homophobia'), many people would not want to raise their children in an environment in which deviant forms of sexuality are embraced. This mentality is understandable considering it wasn't long ago when any secular psychology text you could find would have homosexuality classified as a paraphilia (psychosexual disorder/deviant sexual behavior).

Because of the sexual revolution we are taugh that the link between sexual activity and procreation is obsolete. We are taught that marriage is not indissoluble. Sex before marriage is normal. And a bunch of other lies. The movement to legitimize homosexual activity is what will make firm the ideals of the sexual revolution. I don't know about you, but I'm Catholic. As a Catholic I have a resposibility to oppose things like contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Our society is on a downward spiral and we as Catholics have a resposibility to do something about it. These things will be the death of our society. They strike at the very heart of society, namely marriage and the family, two inseperable realities. The function of legistlation is not to make people feel good and legitimize any choice people would like to make, it is to safeguard society and marriage is precisely the most foundational aspect of society that should be protected and elevated, not diminished.

And someone earlier said, who cares if society falls apart, the Church will be fine. This is not so. The Church is intimately linked with society and suffers when society suffers. Look at all the harm caused in the Church by the societal acceptance of contraception.

[Laudate_Dominum]

If there is not harm, there is not foul.

Morality defines who get's hurt and how. If nobody get's hurt, it's morally neutral. You can't have it both ways. (Moral vs Harmless)

Morality is about much more than who gets hurt. It is about objective values, good and evil. Sometimes morality hurts, it can require sacrifice and suffering, but it is for the good. And legitimizing homosexual activity is harmful to the common good.

Recent CDF Document (official Vatican statement):

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMUN.HTM

Other articles of interest:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMUN.HTM

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/HOMOMARR.TXT

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CHURHOMO.TXT

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/HOMO.HTM

This is a comprehensive study of homosexuality:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/HOMO.HTM

[Guest lundercovera]

I guess you're right. It hurts God.

But I meant it more in a physical way, as in, 'no one will die' if marriage is redefined.

a few souls just might. ppl trying to grow up making sense of themselves with so many messages from the culture telling me it's alright to just follow my fantasies and whims, a culturally acceptable marriage into that lifestyle could easily break my camel's back.

Many homosexuals feel they are biologically set...

and so what if they are biologically set. biology doesn't define morality, and don't tell me law doesn't have anything to do with morality, it's based upon morality, and Christian morality at that.

speaking as one who feels i am 'biologically set' <i've always been attracted to the same sex for as long as i've been attracted to any sex at all> this does not in any way define that marriage is right for me or anyone else who is "biologically set". law is based on morality, and morality dictates that man and woman = procreators who should have support from the state while man and man = roomates who just happen to sleep with each other but are not procreators and thus should not have support from the state.

the state should support those who are contributing to society by bringing into the world and raising good citizens for the state. a gay union does not meet that standard, (except those that adopt, touchy subject around here, but even then i cannot see the state's need to recognize the gay union to support the raising of that future citizen, they can support the raising of that kid through programs available to anyone who adopts <i think they have those, i could be wrong>)

anyway, the jist of it as i c it is: state supports ppl who bring new future citizens into the world and raise them to be good citizens, so they recognize the marriage and give benefits. anything else is just a sham of marriage AND state civil unions.

[hyperdulia again]

And on that note I'm an Anglican. I held on for good while this time.

[BLAZEr]

The fundamental questions in this debate, IMHO:

Does the state determine how the society functions?

Or does the society determine how the state functions?

Can the government tell us what is legal?

Or do we tell the government what we want to be legal and illegal?

Are we a government of, for, and by the people?

Or are we a people of, for, and by the government?

Do we get our rights from the government?

Or do we get our rights from someone else?

Is the government the guarantor of our rights?

Or does the government define our rights?

For me this issue is much less about whether Homosexuals should have the right to marry. The question if fundamentally about how we understand the role of government in civic life. Quite frankly we do not "need" to follow the U.S. Constiution if we don't want to. We can abolish it. But until we do, it seems to me that the authority to determine what is and is not legal rests, ultimately in the people, which is enacted by a legislature that actually tries to reflect our will. These laws are seen to their lawfull execution by the Executive Branch and they are guaranteed when disputed by the Judicial Branch.

Unfortunately in this country the Government has become an ideological mess.

I think I'm moving to Uganda where no one trusts the government.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The fundamental questions in this debate, IMHO:

Does the state determine how the society functions?

Or does the society determine how the state functions?

Can the government tell us what is legal?

Or do we tell the government what we want to be legal and illegal?

Are we a government of, for, and by the people?

Or are we a people of, for, and by the government?

Do we get our rights from the government?

Or do we get our rights from someone else?

Is the government the guarantor of our rights?

Or does the government define our rights?

For me this issue is much less about whether Homosexuals should have the right to marry. The question if fundamentally about how we understand the role of government in civic life. Quite frankly we do not "need" to follow the U.S. Constiution if we don't want to. We can abolish it. But until we do, it seems to me that the authority to determine what is and is not legal rests, ultimately in the people, which is enacted by a legislature that actually tries to reflect our will. These laws are seen to their lawfull execution by the Executive Branch and they are guaranteed when disputed by the Judicial Branch.

Unfortunately in this country the Government has become an ideological mess.

I think I'm moving to Uganda where no one trusts the government.

Plato's Rebublic is starting to really appeal to me. I wouldn't mind having philosopher kings either. ;)

[hyperdulia again]

Plato was a homo...might wanna stay away from him...he also believedat the only way for women to function equally in society was if they were longer mothers in anything but a purely physical sense.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And on that note I'm an Anglican. I held on for good while this time.

That's not funny hyper. <_<

[Laudate_Dominum]

Plato was a homo...might wanna stay away from him...he also believedat the only way for women to function equally in society was if they were longer mothers in anything but a purely physical sense.

LOL! You have a singular expressiveness. Yes.. I think Plato was wrong in many ways, all philosophers are fallible and all their systems are flawed, but he still had some really good points. I was thinking mainly of his criticisms of democratic structures. Oh well.. I don't know what the answers are hyper...

I haven't meant to offend anyone, I've simply been sharing my thoughts. I think people seem to read things into what I say (judging from the replies I get). I often just throw things out there for the sake of reflection, not intending to make definitive statements. I hope you aren't mad at me. You're certainly one of my favorite people on here. And your avatar is my very favorite. :)

[hyperdulia again]

it wasn't supposed to be funny...i leave the church from time to time...this is one of those times...i'm exhausted with thinking she's wrong feeling hurt by loving her and hating her all at once...so i've decided to just love ...which means that i must leave her...outside of her what she says doesn't hurt and i need pay no mind to her other children.

Edited February 13, 2004 by hyperdulia again