Homosexuals

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1561898' date='Jun 7 2008, 01:06 AM']First of all, marriage is not "natural law." Finding a mate for life IS. It is the way human beings have always behaved, which is why our generations are here today. What did early humans do before the idea of marriage was ever established? They found mates and raised children. Marriage is simply a ceremony that celebrates and legally binds two people together.

Secondly, I think you should rethink your statement that openness to life should be a requirement for marriage. What if a couple does not wish to have children?[/quote]

OK, people in the early days, beginning of humanity, probably only had one mate, i don't think that they were 'cave (bed) hoppers.' So yes, in today's society we do have the celebration of a marriage, which is a sacrament, that binds two people for earthly life, to procreate children. And who is to say that people in the beginning of time weren't married? They may not have had the ceremonies that we do, put they could have put something together.

And if people don't want children, what is the point of getting married?

Edited June 7, 2008 by IrishSalesian

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1561864' date='Jun 6 2008, 11:49 PM']does this mean that you agree with me that civil marriage goes against natural law?[/quote]
No. There is such a thing as natural (unsacramental) marriage and it is perfectly reasonable for civil law to reflect that reality. The problem I have is that civil law does not perfectly reflect that reality and leaves out certain key aspects (for instance, civil law does not recognize the necessity of openness to life).

In any case, it is a darn shame that we even have a need for civil marriage in this day and age...sacramental marriage should be the norm.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is my thoughts.

homosexual desires are unnatural. they are empiracally looking at the situation a deviation. the question is what that means for marriage.

i don't think the ultimate christian argument for those against it is that it's not open to life. this is mostly caue i bet most would say taht even those who are sterilized could get married if straight. the idea of moses or an old couple having kids miraclously really isn't there, and to say otherwise is mostly just rationalizing.

you could have an argument, that to promote the union, is to promote the sin. you have to accept it as a premise that it's sinful. if you don't accept that, then the conversation is over as far as anything stemming from that goes, or at least, that is what should be discussed.

i struggel with whether it's really promoting it something, which i tend to think is sinful, as something that is wrong. it's hard to say you're not promoting it such as to encoursage etc. but you could say, simply recognziing it, and that is different than prmoting. some would say recognizing is promoting but. there is soemthing moral about treating others the same as you would want ot be treated, and different life styles to a degree. for christians to see this issue as so clear, when there's that principle... or at least, if they see it clear, to not be able to relate to anyone who disagrees with them is hard for me to understand. (i can understand if you think it's wrong to do it as it's a sin etc, but there is the do unto others and be nice stuff that while it's not suficient to overcome the ideals, it's still there to be acknowledged iw ould think)

[Jaime]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1561923' date='Jun 7 2008, 12:16 AM']No. There is such a thing as natural (unsacramental) marriage and it is perfectly reasonable for civil law to reflect that reality. The problem I have is that civil law does not perfectly reflect that reality and leaves out certain key aspects (for instance, civil law does not recognize the necessity of openness to life).

In any case, it is a darn shame that we even have a need for civil marriage in this day and age...sacramental marriage should be the norm.[/quote]


But if civil marriage does not reflect natural law, then by natural law it works against natural law. It cannot be benign.

It cannot "mostly" fulfill natural law, it any part is missing, (and there is more than one) then it goes against it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1561994' date='Jun 7 2008, 12:44 AM']But if civil marriage does not reflect natural law, then by natural law it works against natural law. It cannot be benign.

It cannot "mostly" fulfill natural law, it any part is missing, (and there is more than one) then it goes against it.[/quote]
It is implicit in the nature of any marriage (natural, civil, Hebrew, or Christian) that union and openness to life are necessary. Since civil marriage does not go against either of these factors, but implicitly supports them, then civil marriage reflects the natural law, it would just more perfectly reflect the natural law if it explicitly supported them, though I would say that this more perfect reflection would be of an extrinsic sort and not intrinsic with regard to civil marriage, which, as you say, either reflects or does not reflect natural law.

However, as I've said, Christian marriage is the perfect fulfillment of all marriage, and so it's a shame that civil marriage even exists nowadays. Keeping that in mind, civil marriage works against natural marriage because it limits the fulfillment of natural marriage by keeping many from being sacramentally married, but that is based on modern circumstances surrounding the lack of practice of the Christian faith, not civil marriage as it is intrinsically.

[Jesus_lol]

quick question here i have been thinking about today
About the whole open-ness to life thing? What about if one person of a heterosexual couple was sterile and they knew this before getting married? That would make it just as closed to life as a gay couple, and their choice to get married would mean that the fertile one would be giving up a chance to make babies with someone else.

This is obviously a special case, but explain how they are different on the open to life thing.
If they cant be proven different, then the rule is hardly all encompassing.

Please dont skip over this one, i really would like some answers and opinions

[XIX]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1561426' date='Jun 6 2008, 07:44 PM']I'm 99% sure that was a typo on XIX's part.[/quote]
LOL...

yes it was a typo.

[XIX]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1561408' date='Jun 6 2008, 07:26 PM']We absolutely should [b]not[/b] favor civil unions. Two people of the same gender cannot become one flesh. That's basic natural law. Civil law has no authority to legalize homosexual civil unions because such unions are contrary to natural law. End of story.

The tax benefits of married persons are given to them precisely because they are married. No two people who cannot marry have any rights to such tax benefits.[/quote]
Yeah, I completely agree with you. It was a typo on my part. My other posts reflect that I think. I was already looking forward to a 2:07 pm nap.

I *think* a Catholic is within his rights to argue that a married couple should be taxed on an even playing field with the rest of society (so long as the government doesn't do this by legalizing homosexual unions). I would disagree with that viewpoint regardless, but I am not aware of any dogma or church document saying that married couples should get tax breaks.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1562131' date='Jun 7 2008, 04:06 AM']quick question here i have been thinking about today
About the whole open-ness to life thing? What about if one person of a heterosexual couple was sterile and they knew this before getting married? That would make it just as closed to life as a gay couple, and their choice to get married would mean that the fertile one would be giving up a chance to make babies with someone else.

This is obviously a special case, but explain how they are different on the open to life thing.
If they cant be proven different, then the rule is hardly all encompassing.

Please dont skip over this one, i really would like some answers and opinions[/quote]
I remember this question from my Liturgy and Sacraments class taught by a Catholic Priest, the difference between a sterile persons heterosexual marriage, and that of a homosexual union, is the natural law aspect. The heterosexual couple can still be open to the possibility of life and this is why they are allowed to be married. They are open to life. The doctors told my mother that she would never be able to have children, she had something wrong with her uterus, but that didn't stop her from God's plan for her from being a mother. She was told that she would never have children but then she and my father had 4 healthy boys all 1 year apart from eachother, (21,20,19,18) It is the openness to life that makes the difference, because all things are possible with God, within the boundaries of natural law

[CatherineM]

Yeah, my mom was also told she couldn't have kids. She had 6 in 19 years.

[Winchester]

The title is fallacious. There's not a single human right denied homosexuals. Their rights are no different from ours. They are exactly the same.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1560817' date='Jun 6 2008, 04:50 AM']Judging from the rest of your post, I think you mean "disagree" ... [/quote]
Yes. Thanks for catching the mis-type. That sentence should read: "And most of the American founding fathers would strongly [b]disagree [/b]with the notion that law should not reflect religious morality in any way."

[Socrates]

The CDF document linked earlier to by XIX: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url] should make it clear and obvious where the Church stands regarding this issue.

[quote]The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[b] Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/b][/quote]

Any laws allowing homosexual "marriages" or "civil unions" are to be opposed by Catholics.
End of story. End of debate.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Socrates

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1563872' date='Jun 8 2008, 10:15 PM']Yes. Thanks for catching the mis-type. That sentence should read: "And most of the American founding fathers would strongly [b]disagree [/b]with the notion that law should not reflect religious morality in any way."[/quote]


No problem, XIX actually did the exact same thing later, leaving off a tiny little part of a word to render it the opposite meaning. lol.

[Pontifite 7 of 10]

They shouldn't have the right t marry because its immoral.
They need to suppress their tendencies.
That is my Catholic answer.
But As an American, isn't this the land of the free? I don't like the homosexual lifestyle one bit, but if we are to live up to the constitution, shouldn't we let them? With liberty and justice for all?
I don’t mind being the land of the free anymore, if it comes at the “cost” of not letting homosexuals getting married. I dunno that’s just how I think.