Homosexual MARRIAGE

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 18 2005, 08:18 PM']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.
[right][snapback]794754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I realize I haven't made a definitive statement on this question as of yet, although I did vote in both this poll and the other one. I haven't yet gotten past, "Why are we ASKING this question in the first place? Does the state have the right to even [i]consider[/i] changing the definition of marriage?" In other words, the question as posed begs the questions of 1) the nature of marriage and 2) the nature of the authority of church and state. You're making the assumption that the state is perfectly within its rights to consider redefining marriage, and I assert that it is not.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 18 2005, 08:18 PM']Secondly, it seems that by your logic here, the state should not make any laws regarding anything moral.
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?"
[right][snapback]794754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's one thing to make judgements about right and wrong. It's another to DEFINE right and wrong. I have no problem with the state making judgements about right and wrong -- that clearly falls within the state's authority. Determining the definition of right and wrong is another matter altogether.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 19 2005, 11:09 AM']I realize I haven't made a definitive statement on this question as of yet, although I did vote in both this poll and the other one. I haven't yet gotten past, "Why are we ASKING this question in the first place? Does the state have the right to even [i]consider[/i] changing the definition of marriage?" In other words, the question as posed begs the questions of 1) the nature of marriage and 2) the nature of the authority of church and state. You're making the assumption that the state is perfectly within its rights to consider redefining marriage, and I assert that it is not.
It's one thing to make judgements about right and wrong. It's another to DEFINE right and wrong. I have no problem with the state making judgements about right and wrong -- that clearly falls within the state's authority. Determining the definition of right and wrong is another matter altogether.
[right][snapback]795085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The reason this question is being asked is quite simply because homosexual activists are demanding legal "marriage rights."
I say it is the duty of Christians to say "No."

You and Jaimie, thouh you say you've voted in this poll, have thus far (unless I've missed it, in which case I apologize) avoided saying how Catholics should vote in such referendums.

You haven't explained to my satisfaction how voting against "gay marriage" will weaken the sacrament of marriage or increase the power of the state.
You've made it clear that you are against any civil marriages, but you've never really expalined how limiting them to man and woman, rather than bestowing marriage benefits on "gays" increases the "state's power over marriage."

I'd agree that it is unfortunate that states are even debating allowing "gay marriage," but it would seem obvious to me how Catholics ought to vote on this issue. Unfortunately, you and Jaimie have never made this clear.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 19 2005, 07:15 PM']The reason this question is being asked is quite simply because homosexual activists are demanding legal "marriage rights."
I say it is the duty of Christians to say "No."

You and Jaimie, thouh you say you've voted in this poll, have thus far (unless I've missed it, in which case I apologize) avoided saying how Catholics should vote in such referendums.

You haven't explained to my satisfaction how voting against "gay marriage" will weaken the sacrament of marriage or increase the power of the state. 
You've made it clear that you are against any civil marriages, but you've never really expalined how limiting them to man and woman, rather than bestowing marriage benefits on "gays" increases the "state's power over marriage."

I'd agree that it is unfortunate that states are even debating allowing "gay marriage,"  but it would seem obvious to me how Catholics ought to vote on this issue.  Unfortunately, you and Jaimie have never made this clear.
[right][snapback]795394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Socrates, I've explained why I haven't voiced my opinions publicly yet. I'm fairly certain that hot stuff has said how he's voted, although I'll let him answer that himself, if he so chooses. I personally am still interested in further discussing the precedent issues before coming to a conclusion. If you're not willing to do so, then you're just going to have to wait until we get to the conclusion part of the discussion.

[Jaime]

[quote]Unfortunately, you and Jaimie have never made this clear.
[/quote]

You're brighter than this Soc.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 19 2005, 09:57 PM']Socrates, I've explained why I haven't voiced my opinions publicly yet. I'm fairly certain that hot stuff has said how he's voted, although I'll let him answer that himself, if he so chooses. I personally am still interested in further discussing the precedent issues before coming to a conclusion. If you're not willing to do so, then you're just going to have to wait until we get to the conclusion part of the discussion.
[right][snapback]795475[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 19 2005, 11:10 PM']You're brighter than this Soc.
[right][snapback]795504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm honestly confused.

Why the games and evasiveness?

Sojourner, I'm afraid I've missed why you haven't given your opinions publicly. (Maybe I'll look back again, but that was a very long and concoluted thread.) But you began by saying you agreed with hot stuff.
hot stuff began by seemingly saying we could not vote against gay marriage because he claimed (absurdly) that the first amendment of the Constitution forbade such a vote.
I thoroughly demolished this skewed argument (based on a radical secularist misinterpretation), showing how the first amendment forbids no such thing.
After this, hot stuff changed the subject to talking about why he was against civil marriages (and then said he was against "gay marriage").

Still, the question is avoided of how Catholics should vote on such a referendum.
I've been straight out and said how Catholics should vote, as have JasJis, Didacus, and others.

Why can't you two do the same?

So far the best I can gather is seems your position on voting is "allowing gay marriage is wrong, but it is wrong to vote against it."

If you have a position on how to vote, state it. But I'm tired of this evasiveness and playing guessing games.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Socrates

[Jaime]

I'm tired of the intentional bullheadedness frankly.

You asked three times on the other thread. I've answered it directly all three times. The last time with a one word answer. I will not do it again. The only way you would not get what my response was would be by not reading.

There is no evasiveness going on.

Edited November 20, 2005 by jaime

[benedict_x]

Ah, debates on Homosexuality.

Things never change in PM.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 20 2005, 12:00 AM']Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm honestly confused. 

Why the games and evasiveness? 

Sojourner, I'm afraid I've missed why you haven't given your opinions publicly.  (Maybe I'll look back again, but that was a very long and concoluted thread.)
[right][snapback]795554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Socrates, here's what I just said a couple of posts ago on this thread:
[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 19 2005, 11:09 AM']I realize I haven't made a definitive statement on this question as of yet, although I did vote in both this poll and the other one. I haven't yet gotten past, "Why are we ASKING this question in the first place? Does the state have the right to even [i]consider[/i] changing the definition of marriage?" In other words, the question as posed begs the questions of 1) the nature of marriage and 2) the nature of the authority of church and state. You're making the assumption that the state is perfectly within its rights to consider redefining marriage, and I assert that it is not.
[right][snapback]795085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'll try to make this a little clearer. I'm not willing to state a conclusion until we've explored the underlying issues that would properly support a conclusion. I don't understand why you're having such trouble grasping this, unless you're just not reading my posts.

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 20 2005, 12:13 AM']I'm tired of the intentional bullheadedness frankly.

You asked three times on the other thread.  I've answered it directly all three times.  The last time with a one word answer.  I will not do it again. The only way you would not get what my response was would be by not reading.

There is no evasiveness going on.
[right][snapback]795567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I laughed out loud at this. You missed your calling to either be a lawyer, politician, or parent.

I've had a busy weekend. I'll post more later when I'm back at work and have more free time. I've become very interested in exploring this with Soj. (Soc, I don't think she's provided an answer).

[Jaime]

Laugh all you want.


You and Soc are the only two that can't understand my position

[the 13th papist]

"Do not be deceived; niether fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes NOR SODOMITES nor theives nor greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robers WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NAB)

i dont want to create an intitution that makes it ok for anybody, especially Catholics, to go to hell. that might be just me.

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 20 2005, 07:31 PM']Laugh all you want. 
You and Soc are the only two that can't understand my position
[right][snapback]796122[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I don't think we are the only ones, but you are right, I don't understand your "[i]position[/i]". Maybe it's the warped version of marriage and warped view of government that confuses me. But that's okay, it's not about you and me. I'm just trying to develop an orderly view of both so that we can explore the application in American society, American government, and Christian life. So, I press onwards.

I wish to further explore exactly what 'marriage' is. I posit that marriage is first a social institution, created by God as a part of the nature of man. Subsequently, through the Grace offered by Christ, marriage MAY be elevated to a Sacrament. To see if this is accurate, we have to explore my position from beginning to end, without jumping around.
Is marriage a social institution crated by God as part of the nature of man? (We'll explore the Sacrament later, since there was marriage before Christ.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 20 2005, 12:13 AM']I'm tired of the intentional bullheadedness frankly.

You asked three times on the other thread.  I've answered it directly all three times.  The last time with a one word answer.  I will not do it again. The only way you would not get what my response was would be by not reading.

There is no evasiveness going on.
[right][snapback]795567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In the last thread you began by making statements such as these.

[quote]The thing that keeps on getting in my way [of voting against "gay marriage"] is stuff like the first ammendment

Is the ability for a homosexual couple to have a civil union a matter of their religious beliefs? No but my objection is from my religious beliefs. Therefore my objection is of personal opinion and not constitutional [/quote]

[quote]The first ammendment would be violated if the morality of a law was based on a religious doctrine. [/quote]

I then showed clearly how voting against the state recognizing "gay marriage" was NOT unconstitutional.[quote]The religious clause in the first ammendment simply meant that the Federal Government could not legally institute a State Religion, like the Church of England. People would be free to go to the church of their choice rather than be forced to be a member of a National Church. It was never interpreted to mean that no laws (and especially state laws) could be influenced in any way by "religious values" until radical secularist judicial activists began misinterpreting it this way in the mid-late 20th century!
That was most certainly not the intent of the American founders (whom even the most deistic or agnostic thereof said that religion was necessary to uphold a free and virtuous republic)!

And certainly, througout this time, the very idea of such things as "gay marriages" was unheard of!

Secondly, if you go to beginning of this thread, you will note that the legal decision in question concerned the laws of the State of Texas.

The Federal Government certainly has no right to impinge on the laws of the State of Texas, nor any other State, concerning marriage, as defined in the Tenth amendment of the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's right. The decision to make laws concerning marriage in the state of Texas belongs to the state of Texas and the people therein! It cannot be impeded by the Federal Government, nor does the 1st Amendment prohibit it in any way![/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."

Se how such statements can seem somewhat contradictory and confusing? This sounds to me a lot like the classic "I'm personally opposed, but . . ." line used by pro-abort "Catholic" polls to justify their pro-abortion policies, while at the same time insisting they are against abortion.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 20 2005, 09:31 AM']Socrates, here's what I just said a couple of posts ago on this thread:

I'll try to make this a little clearer. I'm not willing to state a conclusion until we've explored the underlying issues that would properly support a conclusion. I don't understand why you're having such trouble grasping this, unless you're just not reading my posts.
[right][snapback]795685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Obviously, you had an opinion (as reflected in your vote). You're just not willing to tell which way you voted. (Which is your prerogative, but does seem a bit evasive if you choose to debate this topic.)

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 20 2005, 05:26 PM']I've had a busy weekend.  I'll post more later when I'm back at work and have more free time.  I've become very interested in exploring this with Soj.  (Soc, I don't think she's provided an answer).
[right][snapback]795949[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just so you know, I'm going to be uber busy tomorrow, and then my internet access will be spotty for a few days, so it may have to wait until after the holiday to really get going. I have been doing some reading, however, on the topic of the nature of marriage, and I'm in the process of composing something. I'll try to get something of substance up before the end of the day tomorrow.

And Socrates, my intent is not to be evasive. My intent is to explore this topic in a logical, orderly way. Foundational elements, definitions, etc. -- these are all important corollaries to really understanding an issue. Since I'm not faced with having to make a decision on this immediately, I have the luxury of being able to explore it a little more thoroughly. If this doesn't fit into your ideal of the perfect discussion, you're more than welcome to refrain from participation.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 20 2005, 11:43 PM']Just so you know, I'm going to be uber busy tomorrow, and then my internet access will be spotty for a few days, so it may have to wait until after the holiday to really get going. I have been doing some reading, however, on the topic of the nature of marriage, and I'm in the process of composing something. I'll try to get something of substance up before the end of the day tomorrow.

And Socrates, my intent is not to be evasive. My intent is to explore this topic in a logical, orderly way. Foundational elements, definitions, etc. -- these are all important corollaries to really understanding an issue. Since I'm not faced with having to make a decision on this immediately, I have the luxury of being able to explore it a little more thoroughly. If this doesn't fit into your ideal of the perfect discussion, you're more than welcome to refrain from participation.
[right][snapback]796431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Cool. I've read some stuff and want to read more. What I'm reading is trying to see what the Church says marriage is and how it became a Sacrament. Very enlightening reading the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition on marriage. My next step is to read some what some of the Early Church Fathers taught about it. Don't rush, I'm researching too.

[Sojourner]

OK, jas,
I'm going to post a few thoughts now. Please know these are "under construction" so they're not set in stone. I'd welcome your comments on them.

As I noted earlier, according to John Paul II, marriage was instituted as a "primordial sacrament." Before sin rent the relationship between God and man, "the reality of man was imbued by the perennial election of man in Christ." That election was, in part, evinced in the marital relationship, which, before the fall, was sacramental in nature -- it was a means of communicating grace.

After the fall, John Paul II says marriage, along with everything else, changed.
[quote]"The perspective of procreation, [i]instead of being illumined by the heritage of original grace[/i], given by God as soon as he infused a rational soul, became dimmed by the [i]heritage of original sin[/i]. We can say that marriage, as a primordial sacrament, was deprived of that supernatural efficacy which at the moment of its institution belonged to the sacrament of creation in its totality. Nonetheless, even in this state, that is, in the state of man's hereditary sinfulness, [i]marriage never ceased being the figure of that sacrament [/i]we read about in the Letter to the Ephesians (Eph 5:21-33) and which the author of that letter does not hesitate to call a "great mystery." Can we not perhaps deduce that marriage has remained the platform for the actuation of God's eternal designs, according to which the sacrament of creation had drawn near to men and had prepared them for the sacrament of redemption, introducing them to the dimension of the work of salvation?[/quote]

I have written to a priest friend of mine who's familiar with Theology of the Body (from which this is drawn) to ask a few questions about what this means as far as the nature of marriage is concerned. From my reading of this, I think marriage is something like a pitcher which once served as a "grace container", but developed a crack in it as a result of the fall, and was no longer capable of communicating grace. However, it still maintained the basic form of the container. When Christ came, he offered the opportunity to fix the container, thereby making it possible that our containers could once again serve as conduits of grace -- i.e., that marriage could regain its sacramental nature.

I am not sure how or if this is in agreement with your assertion that marriage is "first a social institution, created by God as a part of the nature of man."

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.

I'm still thinking through all this, and the implications of it, so feel free to weigh in with any thoughts or responses.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 21 2005, 08:37 AM']OK, jas,
I'm going to post a few thoughts now. Please know these are "under construction" so they're not set in stone. I'd welcome your comments on them.

As I noted earlier, according to John Paul II, marriage was instituted as a "primordial sacrament." Before sin rent the relationship between God and man, "the reality of man was imbued by the perennial election of man in Christ." That election was, in part, evinced in the marital relationship, which, before the fall, was sacramental in nature -- it was a means of communicating grace.

After the fall, John Paul II says marriage, along with everything else, changed.
I have written to a priest friend of mine who's familiar with Theology of the Body (from which this is drawn) to ask a few questions about what this means as far as the nature of marriage is concerned. From my reading of this, I think marriage is something like a pitcher which once served as a "grace container", but developed a crack in it as a result of the fall, and was no longer capable of communicating grace. However, it still maintained the basic form of the container. When Christ came, he offered the opportunity to fix the container, thereby making it possible that our containers could once again serve as conduits of grace -- i.e., that marriage could regain its sacramental nature.

I am not sure how or if this is in agreement with your assertion that marriage is "first a social institution, created by God as a part of the nature of man."

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.

I'm still thinking through all this, and the implications of it, so feel free to weigh in with any thoughts or responses.
[right][snapback]796571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I like your analogy. I think it fits pretty well. Marriage as a container or vehicle of grace is a great point. Government's role is to protect and support basic morality to prevent further damage to the vessel itself (a vessel created by God and is immutable by Natural Law), but it is the Church's sole right to be the avenue of Grace and is a superior authority to Government. The vessel is all well and good, but is pointless if it isn't functionable. The more I think of this the more I like your genious. :

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 21 2005, 08:47 AM']I like your analogy.  I think it fits pretty well.  Marriage as a container or vehicle of grace is a great point.  Government's role is to protect and support basic morality to prevent further damage to the vessel itself (a vessel created by God and is immutable by Natural Law), but it is the Church's sole right to be the avenue of Grace and is a superior authority to Government.  The vessel is all well and good, but is pointless if it isn't functionable.  The more I think of this the more I like your genious.  :
[right][snapback]796576[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm a little nervous that you're agreeing. :

But I'll keep going anyway. Going off my analogy, I'd say the type of vessel we call "marriage" has certain characteristics, and those characteristics have been progressively more closely defined both by direct revelation and through church teaching. Where I'm still researching right now is, "When is a marriage not a marriage?" At what point does it cease being "the figure of the sacrament"? Does that happen, say, when you insert contraception into the equation? What elements of marriage can be changed without changing the essential form of the vessel, making it no longer marriage?

[Jaime]

[quote]Se how such statements can seem somewhat contradictory and confusing? This sounds to me a lot like the classic "I'm personally opposed, but . . ." line used by pro-abort "Catholic" polls to justify their pro-abortion policies, while at the same time insisting they are against abortion.
[/quote]

How are these statements confusing?

I am against the government defining and creating the institution of marriage because sacramentality takes precedent over natural law.

If the government wants to create civil unions, its within its rights to do so. I honestly don't care about civil unions. I would rather see common law civil unions than common law marriages.

Civil marriages are like saying " I want a gold medal but I don't want to train for the Olympics." Its a detriment to our society. Jas may think this view is "warped" but there is logic to it. He can belittle it all he wants,

And check out the arguments. The "I'm personally opposed" argument is being used by Jas in support of civil marriages, it ain't being used by me. You want to critique a flow of logic, call out the right guy.

Edited November 21, 2005 by jaime