Homosexual MARRIAGE

[jasJis]

Since the other post got cluttered up and had limited choices, I thought this would generate some additional enlightened conversation. Please respect the thread and keep the rants on the other thread :

[Didacus]

Give me door number 1 please!

My personnal opinion is that Cathlics could learn from the muslims and have Catholic states.



Since when is the law suppose to be independant of morality!!!

[Sojourner]

OK, Jas,
Here's the first of the points I made yesterday:
[quote]2) My position from the beginning has been that the state should not be in the business of defining marriage. As Theoketos said (emphasis added):
[quote]Once the State thinks it has the right to decide what is true and what is false, [b]it thinks it can become something like a god[/b]. This leads to tyranny. Ironically, these tyrannical states usually advocate personal autonomy, thereby equating freedom from limitations as the greatest freedom. True freedom however is not having an infinate amount of choices, but being able to what is best for both self and and others (in faith we would also add for the glory of God).[/quote][/quote]

To which you replied:
[quote]#2. The State does not define marriage, but is in the business of reflecting and promoting what is naturally right.[/quote]

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.

[photosynthesis]

"Freedom is the ability to do what we ought." - Pope John Paul II

[jasJis]

Soj,
Let's start from the basics.
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?

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?

I think this will help us clarify what Marriage is and identify areas of athority, but let's do it slow. I can't think too fast.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 18 2005, 11:46 AM']Soj,
Let's start from the basics.
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?

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?

I think this will help us clarify what Marriage is and identify areas of athority, but let's do it slow.  I can't think too fast.
[right][snapback]794203[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'd agree that marriage was instituted by God -- as Pope John Paul II called it, the "primordial [or original] sacrament."

Edited to say: I'm still working on lining out exactly what that means.

[Didacus]

i don't know what the fuss is all about!!!

Homosexual marriages will be seen as a stepping stone in the future, and those who advocate it will be seen as pioneers to a brave new world! See this little article for example;


[url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html[/url]

Gay marriage sets us free to do so many things that past generations simply could not because they where ignorant and narrow minded. i'm certain my father would have loved to have a better relationship with the family dog, and that everyone would have greatly benefitted from the whole thing.

[jezic]

are you sure you want to open this thread .... the last one hasn't turned out very well yet

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jezic' date='Nov 18 2005, 02:37 PM']are you sure you want to open this thread .... the last one hasn't turned out very well yet
[right][snapback]794503[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We're hoping the other one will keep people occupied, allowing us to carry on intelligent conversation under the radar.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 18 2005, 02:41 PM']We're hoping the other one will keep people occupied, allowing us to carry on intelligent conversation under the radar.
[right][snapback]794517[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Is that your polite way of telling me to keep out of the thread?






No one is a prophet in their own land.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Didacus

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Nov 18 2005, 03:03 PM']Is that your polite way of telling me to keep out of the thread?
No one is a prophet in their own land.
[right][snapback]794567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I didn't name any names. I personally would welcome anyone who wishes to discuss the issues at hand.

BTW, your article moved me to look at Indiana's statutes. I haven't found anything yet in our criminal code which outlaws bestiality, although I suppose it could be interpreted as a crime under the "cruelty against animals" statutes. Apparently we're farther along the road to destruction than Massachusetts is.

[jasJis]

The idea is to discuss and debate about Gay marriages in a fundamental way so that people of differing opinons and view points can share them in an orderly way and try to understand exactly WHY each other holds their particular opinion. For some of us (me) it will be enlightenting. I believe I know why. Soj and I are going to try to do this in an orderly way from what marriage is and isn't. Areas of authority or no authority. What we should do or shouldn't do as citizens and as Christians. We will ignore those who call us haters or we can't understand or understand us. We are too simple minded and confuse easily.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 18 2005, 04:05 PM']The idea is to discuss and debate about Gay marriages in a fundamental way so that people of differing opinons and view points can share them in an orderly way and try to understand exactly WHY each other holds their particular opinion. For some of us (me) it will be enlightenting.  I believe I know why. Soj and I are going to try to do this in an orderly way from what marriage is and isn't.  Areas of authority or no authority.  What we should do or shouldn't do as citizens and as Christians.  We will ignore those who call us haters or we can't understand or understand us.  We are too simple minded    and confuse easily.
[right][snapback]794604[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yep!

Hey look, jas! I'm agreeing with you!



Don't tell anyone!

[Didacus]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 18 2005, 03:21 PM']I didn't name any names. I personally would welcome anyone who wishes to discuss the issues at hand.

BTW, your article moved me to look at Indiana's statutes. I haven't found anything yet in our criminal code which outlaws bestiality, although I suppose it could be interpreted as a crime under the "cruelty against animals" statutes. Apparently we're farther along the road to destruction than Massachusetts is.
[right][snapback]794579[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disagree...

If your state never felt a need to legislate these acts, that is because they where not occuring enough to be a concern. If a state actually makes laws towards beastiallity, then I'd say these states felt there was enough of that going on that they where actually pushed into doing something about it.

[jasJis]

Didicas,
Bring it back to this thread topic. Do you agree or disagree to the two statements in my earlier post. Give a why, if possible.

Edited November 18, 2005 by jasJis

[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.