With regard to gay “marriage”, here is a list of the questions I come across most often, with my brief answers:
-1-
“Why are you against gay marriage?”
It’s not that I am against gay “marriage” per se, it’s that gay “marriage” is an ontological impossibility. It’s like asking why I am against square circles. Marriage has an essence, a meaning. It has always been a certain kind of union of persons, specifically a conjugal union rooted in biology itself; it is complementary and heterosexual by its very nature. The particulars of marriage contracts have varied over time and cultures, but the essence of male/female has not. Brides have always presupposed grooms. The fact that marriage is a “universal” throughout human history indicates something huge, namely the recognition that this one particular type of personal relationship is unique among all others: It is naturally ordered toward procreation. That children result from the union of man and woman (now mother and father) is the foundational reason that human societies have had an interest in protecting, elevating, and/or providing benefits for this type of union.
Without this sexual complementarity, and without the ability to consummate a marriage, there can be no marriage. With bodies of the same sex, the marital act cannot be completed and consummation is not possible. A bride implies a groom in the same way that a lock implies a key. Two locks make no sense together. Two keys make no sense together. The union of husband and wife, like the integration of lock and key, is a relationship different from any other.
-2-
“But what about heterosexual couples who are infertile? They are allowed to marry even though they can’t procreate!”
The completed sexual union of male and female is always ordered toward procreation, even if the couple does not actually conceive a child. Age or illness or a defect in the reproductive system may make individual unions infertile, but that doesn’t change the nature of the act, which is ordered toward generation. Producing children is not the basis of a valid marriage, the conjugal union is. Whether or not children are conceived is beyond human control. It’s not the conception of children that makes a marriage, it’s the total, one-flesh union of husband and wife. The conjugal union itself, not the fruit of the union, is the seal of the marriage.
And as we’ve all known infertile couples who’ve eventually conceived years or even decades after their weddings, we can never say with certainty who will or will not be childless. God and nature have ways of surprising us. However, we can say with complete certainty that two men will never conceive a child from their sexual acts, nor will two women. The sexual “union” of two men or two women is always barren, as nature and right order would have it. It’s the way it’s supposed to be.
-3-
“What about men and women who are handicapped and not able to consummate? Are you saying that they cannot be married?”
This is a very delicate subject to discuss precisely because we have forgotten that marriage is a conjugal union. If there is no possibility of a conjugal union, not even one time, then the essence of marriage is missing. A relationship between two people without the ability to have sexual intercourse (i.e., to become “one flesh”) is called a friendship. That sounds cold to the modern ear, since we want everyone to feel good and “be happy”. But feeling good at the expense of what is true can never satisfy, not ultimately.
Impotence or the inability to consummate is an impediment to the Sacrament of Matrimony for sure, but even the secular state will annul a civil marriage on the basis of non-consummation.
Now, with today’s technology, thank God, there are many ways to cure impotence and allow for marital relations, and that is a blessing.
-4-
“So you think marriage is all about sex! Can’t you see it’s about love?”
No, marriage is not “all about sex”, of course, but sex is an intrinsic part of marriage. As mentioned above, a close and intimate relationship without sex is called a friendship, and neither church nor state would have reason to validate or elevate or give special status to that, as wonderful as friendship is. Also, while romantic feelings (what people usually mean these days when they talk about “love”) are ideal and desired between spouses, they’ve never, ever been a prerequisite for valid marriage. To say so would be to deny that many of our own ancestors (and even some of our parents and grandparents!) were actually married. My grandparents, for example, did not know each other well when they became husband and wife. Yet they were married for over fifty years and had many children and grandchildren (and great-grandchildren, and now great-great-grandchildren). A romantic feeling at the time of their wedding was not a requirement for a valid marriage.
Heck, if you ask Golde and Tevye (you all are huge Fiddler on the Roof fans like me, right?), they’d say their marriage turned out just fine, even though they met on their wedding day.
(Yes, I know they are fictional, but they are also representative. And you might notice that their understanding of love is closer to what authentic love actually is: A choice, and a willing of the other’s good, not a “feeling”.)
-5-
“But the state says that gay people can marry, so that means they can!”
There are many things the state has said that are legal fictions, i.e., that are not true or based in reality. For only a small example, governments have declared at various times that certain human beings are less human than others (slaves, Jews, the unborn), or that women are men and men are women (transgender laws). None of those laws can change reality. The law is not magic, and it cannot make black people less human, it cannot make women turn into men, and it cannot make marriage between two men (or two women) possible. The state can play with words, but it cannot change essences. The playing with words is a problem unto itself, and we should be very wary when any political agenda bursts forth in a frenzy, redefining a word to mean something foreign to anything it has meant before. So, when someone says to me, “Look, if the state says two men are married, then they’re married!” this is what I hear:
“Look, if the state says that a woman is now a man, then the woman is now a man!”
“Look, if the state says that all chairs are now clocks, then they are!”
“Look, if the state says that Jews are not human, then they aren’t human!”
“Look, if the state says that black people can be the property of others, then they can be!”
“Look, if the state says that the unborn are not human beings, then they aren’t!”
(Four out of five of those “truths” have happened, by the way.)
I teach my children not to lie. I will not go along with a lie. I will not teach my children to go along with a lie.
Marriage is pre-political — no state invented it, nor can any state redefine it. Heck, even the etymology of the words “marry” and “matrimony” (derived from the word “mother”) excludes the very concept of a homosexual “marriage”. Of course, the government can give out specific benefits and services to whomever it wishes (that’s within its legitimate authority), but what it cannot do is redefine an institution that it did not create in the first place.
We may not legitimately demand the change of a thing’s essence, simply because we have strong “feelings” about what we want. The truth about marriage is what Hillary Clinton so eloquently stated just a few years ago, before her “evolution” on the issue. She believed:
“…the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society in which they are to become adults.”
and
“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”
Politicians cannot suddenly pass a law or judges sign some papers and change the truth of it.
-6-
“Why not support civil unions if you can’t support gay marriage?”
That was tried and it didn’t work well, to say the least. Clearly, gay rights advocates were not satisfied with that accommodation, as they barreled right past that and now demand that the word “marriage” apply to gay unions. Gay unions must be seen as on par with and equal to true marriage. Nothing less will be tolerated. But even before the demands for full “marriage” recognition came, the problems with civil union laws were evident, as they effectively forced the closure of Catholic ministries, including foster care and adoption agencies, some of which had been serving the needy in their communities for a century. This happened despite the fraudulent assurances by the civil union supporters that the law would have no effect on faith-based services [which only begins to answer another common question, “How does gay ‘marriage’ affect you, anyway?”]
Ultimately, the concept of civil unions was always just a stepping stone to the bigger prize, and it never protected religious liberty or traditional marriage anyway.
-7-
“You should be concerned about all the ways that heterosexuals have weakened marriage!”
Oh, I am incredibly concerned about that! Divorce (especially the pernicious “no-fault” divorce), adultery, polygamy, swinging, pre-marital sex, contraception and abortion, etc…. All of that has harmed the institution of marriage and, of course, children. However, just because we’ve severely damaged marriage, that’s no argument for demolishing it completely! The proper response to the sad state of marriage today is to strengthen it, not un-define it into oblivion.
Besides, every marriage that is weak, irregular, or even broken has at least the potential to be strengthened, regularized and restored. But with two men (or two women), there is no potential for marriage in the first place (see #1).
-8-
“The Church cannot impose her views of marriage on society!”
There are a couple of things wrong with this argument. First, no one is saying that all Americans should be married in a Catholic Church and have a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Church herself recognizes the valid marriages of billions who are not Catholic or even Christian. Valid marriages do not have to be sacramental.
Second, the idea of the Church “imposing” the heterosexual nature of marriage is silly. One cannot impose something that has always been there. One cannot impose the status quo. The imposition, as I have written about before, is coming only from one side, and it’s not coming from the Church.
And of course there is the question of atheist regimes, which do not recognize gay “marriage”. How can that be explained? Certainly, no one is going to try to blame the Catholic Church for that, right? After all, atheistic regimes are all about condemning and persecuting the Church, not acquiescing to her. Clearly, marriage as conjugal union is a natural law issue and not a “Catholic” issue.
-9-
“Why do you talk about gay marriage so much?”
I wish you could see my face right now. Oh.my.gosh. How I wish and even fervently pray that I would never have to speak or write on this topic ever again. It’s a cultural obsession (not too strong a word!), with the elites’ only aim to beat us down into silence and/or submission on this topic. We are not to utter a peep against gay “marriage”, or we will pay a price, whether that price is simply ridicule, mocking, and harassment, or a more serious penalty such as loss of friends, family, job opportunities, or livelihood. Perhaps jail one day? I wouldn’t bet against it.
I long for the days where gay “marriage” was not integrated into every news story, every college course, every television show, every court case, every sports event, every holiday, every legislative session, small school children’s textbooks, car commercials, hamburger wrappers, etc., etc., etc.
I have gay “marriage” fatigue (like everyone else I know), and yet there is no option but to speak for what is True, because that’s who we are as Catholics. It’s what we are called to do, in season and out. We won’t hurt you or hate you or ask the government to fine you or ruin you if you disagree with us, but we will speak the Truth in love, because lies are no good for anyone. It is always better to understand what a thing is, and then to use that thing according to its nature. That is how human beings and human societies flourish, after all.
Catholic Stand is a site about ideas and about truth. We dialogue here as mature adults (I hope), striving to draw closer to what is True, Good, and Beautiful. I assume that Catholic Stand readers are Truth-seekers on some level. None of what I have said above should be construed as “hateful” or “bigoted” or “mean”. It is neither mean nor hateful to say that a dog is not a cat, or that a man is not a woman, or that a chair is not a clock.
Love is not a feeling. Marriage is not a construct. Society’s very foundation may not be un-defined on a whim of “But I want it!” Happiness cannot be found by going against our human nature and dignity. Truth does not change. All of this must be talked about. And as much as I don’t want to, I will continue to talk about it, because marriage is just that important.
Related posts:
303 thoughts on “My Answers To Questions About Gay Marriage”
1. You can stop putting the word marriage in quotations now.
2. Enough with the chair/clock analogy.
3. Yes, you ARE making it all about sex, which by the way is a personal and intimate thing between a couple. As consenting adults in a committed relationship, we do not need a bunch of celibate men telling us when, why and how to have sex. Ewww, weird and gross!
4. Way to go Catholic Church. Go ahead and keep turning more and more people away. Can’t wait to see how that’s going to work out for you.
– Signed, Hetero, ex-“catholic”
If that completes your rebuttal to the article, then I have to declare the article the winner, and you the “hater”.
I wasn’t viewing this as a competition or even a debating point. I was just so shocked and upset by the extremism in this article, I needed to vent. I do not have nearly the time (nor the desire) to refute the multitude of ridiculous points in this article. Ie Disabled people only being able to have a “friendship” because they can’t physically consummate their marriage. Are. You. Kidding. Not to mention the narrow definition of marriage in the first place – to have a “sexual union that is ordered toward procreation”. What does that even mean??? That you can’t have sex just for the pleasure of it, even if it’s married, heterosexual sex? Anyway, my original point (#3) was that I really don’t think sexual relations or marital relations for that matter, are any of the church’s business, especially when it’s not exactly their (priest, pope, etc) area of expertise.
Wait, you realize that civil authorities will annul for non-consummation, right? Before you say you can’t believe that consummation is essential to marriage, think about that.
And, really? Sexual morality is not something a religion can concern itself with? Wow, what about stealing or lying? Is that something no religions should worry about either? When did sex acts leave the realm of morality?
When something is “ordered toward” something, it has to do with its nature. In biology, the reproductive system is intrinsically connected to the sexual act. In fact, reproduction occurs via sexual intercourse (but you know this already). So, those body parts and that act are always “ordered toward” procreation (that is why they call it the “reproductive system” and it requires both male and female to be complete as a system). Does every marital act have to result in a baby? Of course not, and the Church does not claim such a thing. Of course married couples can have sex for pleasure, and since we use sex according to its nature, there is no wonder that we have the best and most frequent sex. 😉
Here’s from USNews (secular):
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/17/devout-catholics-have-better-sex
“Best and most frequent sex”? interesting. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the male g-spot being located in the anus? There’s some biology for you!
Thank you for your classy response. Surely this will win many to the rightness of your cause–“Love wins.”
No worries! And hey it may not be classy, but it’s true and relevant. I’m simply rebutting Leila’s claim that hetero couples have the “best and most frequent sex” which I completely disagree with.
That’s your rebuttal? I take it you are not deeply religious? “Deeply religious couples have more and better sex than irreligious couples.”
Dr. Roger Finke and Dr. Rodney Stark The Churching of America 1776-1990. http://www.amazon.com/The-Churching-Of-America-1776-1990/dp/0813518385 “Research shows that same sex unions suffer a significantly higher prevalence of domestic abuse, depression, substance-abuse disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases.” See more at: http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=13252#sthash.QwYlpes4.dpuf
I’m not religious at all, Atheist in fact. And I have a very happy and healthy sex life with my partner. Not disputing that there are a high number of same sex couples who struggle with domestic violence, substance abuse, and STI’s, just as a large number of straight, married couples go through the same issues and I don’t need to post articles or studies to verify that.
In relation to mental health, yes there is an exceptionally high percentage of depression/anxiety in the GLBTQ community. Legalising same sex marriage can only help to reduce this as its a major leap forward for equality and will allow many loving couples to marry and be recognised legally and not as second class citizens.
Thanks, Ben, for sharing a little about yourself. I too was an Atheist for the 20 years I was drinking and drugging, mostly drinking. I hated the Catholic Church with a passion. Mostly because of its traditional morality. I believed what the pop culture told me that sex was a desire like thirst that had to be satisfied. When I sobered up I started believing in God and slowly over the next 20 years, after going down many blind alleys, I found the Catholic Church. I also discovered that, unlike water, if you go without sex for 4 days you don’t die. Or 4 months or 4 years.
Now believe me, I don’t look down on anyone. I still sin more than anyone, in a thousand ways every day. Not the headline sins of sex or murder or theft. But the ones that are just as bad: pride, sloth, gluttony, envy, and lust after things that are not of God.
I just want to say that God loves you immensely, as much as he loves anybody. He sends his love and life and healing to you constantly. All He wants is to draw you to Him and to follow Him. Gosh, He only gives us 10 rules.
I do hope you give God a chance. Blessings to you and your partner.
What a curious reply. I have absolutely no thoughts on anything relating to the reproductive organs being used in the digestive tract. Completely disordered, obviously. But I’m guessing by your question that you believe the biological nature of a male anus is to receive a penis? Again, curious.
It may seem curious to you, but to gay men (and an increasing amount of straight and also married men) anal sex/prostate stimulation is common and quite natural. The reason I bring it up is to argue that gay male couples also enjoy regular and equally, if not more pleasurable, sex.
I am not here to comment on the practices of gay males (although I am made to understand that they are usually not at all monogamous, so I’m not sure what part of “marriage” they actually want to embrace). But I will say that just because something feels “natural” to someone, does not mean it is natural, or rightly ordered. It feels quite “natural” for an alcoholic to take a drink, and unnatural not to. It feels “natural” for a pathological liar to tell a lie, and quite unnatural not to. A lot of things that feel “natural” are in fact, acts against human dignity. Are you claiming that all acts that “come naturally” are good for the actor? If not (and I hope you say they are not), then what is the criteria for the good?
Love how you dive straight into the common misconception that gay couples are “not at all monogamous”. Your ignorance is laughable.
A gay couple who want to marry have made a commitment to one another just the same as a straight couple.
Your comments in relation to the “criteria for good”, of course alcoholism and pathological lying may come naturally to some, and they can be very harmful to the actor and to others.
Sex between two consenting adults however, is not harmful in any way if it is done safely – gay or straight.
Here is a 2010 study done by homosexual academic researchers Blake Spears and Lanz Lowen entitled, Beyond Monogamy: Lessons from Long-term Male Couples in Non-Monogamous Relationships.
http://thecouplesstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/BeyondMonogamy_1_01.pdf
This is a summary of what they found:
36% of relationships were open from the beginning with little change over time,
12% were slightly open and increased their openness over time,
42% of couples were initially monogamous and opened their relationship considerably over time,
4% were initially monogamous and opened their relationship slightly,
6% moved closer to monogamy and away from openness.
The results of this study, admittedly only one study, but published in 2010, show that gay relationships are very often non-monogamous (78% responded that either the relationship initially was open or became more open over time) and that the partners openly agree to such a non-monogamous relationship. It is possible that marriage may improve these numbers, but the gay community has a long way to go to increase the monogamy of its relationships, with this telling comment by the researchers near the end of their paper (p. 75):
“Ironically, when California legalized gay marriage (however briefly), we began hearing more and more of our study participants mention their marriages. This wasn’t something we tracked, but a majority of the study couples from that point forward spoke of being married. Clearly they weren’t equating marriage with monogamy!”
Even so, why should this stop gay couples who do wish to have a monogonous relationship from having equal rights?
Ben, the dubiousness of the legal arguments aside, with Obergefell, the Court has now mandated that right, in a country of over 320 million people, by the vote of a single Supreme Court Justice.
But, the Supreme Court decision notwithstanding, the 50+ year decline in marriage, both in terms of attitude and practice, will continue in the West, not strengthened by attitudes and practices where more than 75% of gay couples are openly and intentionally non-monogamous.
As I have said elsewhere repeatedly, the radical redefinition of marriage is a reflection of the 50+ year decline in the attitudes and practices around marriage. According to a 2010 Pew study, 44% of 18-29 year olds, and 41% of 30-49 year olds, believe that marriage is “becoming obsolete.” As this one statistic so telling captures, the radical redefinition of marriage would not have been possible without the decline in marriage that has occurred in the West, in terms both of attitude and practice.
What has happened recently with the radical redefinition of marriage is merely a reflection of that decline.
Obviously stealing harms someone else, so does lying (in general at least). If one can’t show harm, it’s becomes problematic to call something immoral (we can discuss various moral paradigms if you like, Catholics have historically considered “being” to be the primary good, so the result is teaching that maximize the number of offspring..i.e. more being).
As far as sexual organs being “ordered” toward reproduction, this is only part of the biological scenario. Pair bonding is considered to be very important biologically, though biology doesn’t typically prioritize functionality (that a job for philosophy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond
Also consider the fact that the digestive system is ordered to digest food. Thus, by your logic, it’s immoral to eat zero calorie food or chew nutrition-less gum because it thwarts the natural end of the digestive system. A similar case could be made about it being immoral to take a joy ride in a car, or even a pointless walk, as the natural end of both these things is to get somewhere.
If you’d like, I can discuss the scientific case to be made that being against homosexuality doesn’t necessary increase the number of heterosexual marriages and thus offspring (homosexuals typically just go without sex altogether). Thus, even if “being” is the greatest good, the case for the immorality of homosexuality is weak at best.
There are countless ways that homosexual acts and homosexual “marriage” harms people and society (and especially the children). I mean, the evidence is copious and I am sure you could not have missed all of it? It’s just that gay activists pooh-pooh it all when it’s brought up.
Actually, there is more to the digestive tract than mere digestion. Pleasure in eating is a good thing, too (or chewing gum, etc.). But you are right in this respect: If a person eats for the pleasure and then unnaturally decides to make oneself throw up the contents of the stomach (thwarting the natural actions that would have followed from swallowing the food or drink), then we could call that act “disordered”. Bulimia is disordered. (I’ve never heard of anyone calling gum-chewing disordered, or that it’s a moral issue. Have you?)
God does not say every act has to “get us somewhere” (aside from heaven), and joy and pleasure is a beautiful part of life, but we may not misuse or distort the meaning of something as important as human sexuality (which is the very thing that transmits human life and creates new souls) or the human body (a visible manifestation of the nature of God himself — read theology of the body). No one is saying that every act must create a baby (God even built in more infertile days in a woman’s cycle than fertile), but we may not distort and debase the very nature of that act by using our sexual organs against their nature. Agreed?
I’d agree that, all things being equal, a heterosexual couple should be preferred for adoption, though that doesn’t imply that homosexual couples should necessarily be excluded on principle (to think an orphanage is better than two parents of the same sex seems misguided).
Otherwise, I’d like to see the evidence you are speaking of, and see if it’s any good. I’ve seen a lot of pseudoscience presented as evidence, and I’m quite good at debunking pseudoscience, there is plenty of it out there.
In Canada where same-sex “marriage” was nationally legalized 10 years ago, it is now a hate crime to say or write anything against it. You can be brought before a Tribunal and fined. Books speaking against it are being banned and seized. Books and materials are being seized at the border. A harbinger of things to come.
http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/aggregated-content/a-warning-from-canada-same-sex-marriage-erodes-fundamental-rights-5794749092986880?page=2
In the US already children as early as kindergarten are being taught sex education and about how to have gay sex.
The National LGBT Cancer Network says:
“Current estimates are that HIV negative MSMs (males having sex with males) are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases per 100,000. HIV-positive MSMs are up to 40 times more likely to diagnosed with the disease, resulting in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people…
“In MSMs, HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is transmitted through both protected and unprotected anal intercourse and skin-to-skin contact. Among heterosexual women, the vast majority of infections are cleared naturally by the body within a few years, usually by age 30, but this appears to be less true for MSM, where the infections are often still present in later adulthood.” This causes health care costs for all to rise.
http://www.cancer-network.org/cancer_information/gay_men_and_cancer/anal_cancer_hiv_and_gay_men.php
Would it be a hate crime to speak against traditional marriage in Canada ?
“Current estimates are that HIV negative MSMs (males having sex with males) are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases per 100,000. HIV-positive MSMs are up to 40 times more likely to diagnosed with the disease, resulting in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people…
See, Jamey, this is why it’s not about SIN. It’s about the Buddhist concept
of CONSEQUENCES and ENTANGLEMENT . This presentation works a lot better than those conservatives making hell threats.
No, you can speak against traditional marriage in Canada.
Well, James, the natural law argument/fact that biologically male and female go together, they’re complimentary, to produce children is very strong. Whether you are religious or not, even Atheists can see that. Biologically one of our greatest desires is to produce children. That’s why the State has an interest in marriage for the good of society to produce and educate children. The State should have no interest in sanctioning a declaration of love between 2 people. Should it therefore give out Beginners Marriage Permits to 2 people who declare they are going steady?
what does this have to do with consequences and …?
You don’t think the action of getting married has the consequence of possibley having children? The consequence of gay “maariage” is often the extinction of the couple.
I’ll pass, Jamey as my second statement was not commented on.
“I’m quite good at debunking pseudoscience”
This is quite a claim! What is your method? And why are you better than the rest of us? Thanks!
Well, I give you a list of my personal credentials, yada yada yada, but it would be better if you linked the evidence you are speaking of so I could show you directly. Perhaps it’s solid evidence that I have not seen (I’m always open to learning new things), perhaps not. I’m not trying to use the fallacy of authority, by any means, though the source of a study can be “somewhat” relevant, it doesn’t matter as much as long as it’s done properly. One solo study means very little of course, a body of studies (meta study) is much more useful. In general I would focus on the methodology used, size of sample group, and relevant similar studies (there there are plenty of other possible issues). Have you every studied epidemiology and/or philosophy of science?
No, I haven’t. But I know enough to know that with social science, it’s fairly easy to get the outcome one wishes. Unfortunately, it’s the lives of the children that will bear this out. Already there are children of gay parents speaking out (as much as it pains them to hurt the people whom they love dearly), and support groups are springing up. You don’t see that with kids raised in happy, intact mother/father homes. But you do see it with kids raised in even happy gay homes.
I’m interested why you think that, all things being equal, it’s better for a child to be raised by a mother and father? Thanks!
To answer your question, I do think it is helpful to have both role models for a child. Sure, a child in a gay home could get mentors outside the home, but there is a ton of research that shows groups composed of both men and women think better and possibly even have a higher group intelligence. I’m only willing to take this so far, however, as this partly rests on common sense and general rules about gender diversity.
With regard to children of gay parents “speaking out”, what would children of heterosexual parents “speaking out” even look like. Would they claim they would have been better off being raised by gay parents? How could they possibly be sure that’s actually true, since they would have been in a completely different home scenario? In general, you are offering anecdotal evidence, which should not used a reasonable general pattern. This if from the Huffington post (obviously a very biased media source) offering anecdotal evidence from kids who say being raised by gay parents has been great. This has no more truth value than your anecdotes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/lgbt-children-parents_n_6315654.html
I had hell beaten into me as a child (“Spare the rod, spoil the child”) so I could mount a solid argument about how Christianity can result in child abuse, thus no Christian should be allowed to adopt. I’m smart enough to realize that my specific childhood situation is also an anecdote, and not necessarily indicative of all Christians (these people were extremely Old Testament). Again, none of this counts as evidence.
The social sciences have come a long way in the past 20 years in honing in and perfecting their methodology. Without going into detail I would ask if you’ve every read the wikipedia article on the subject and looked at a number of the studies (you can google them) mentioned? All valid studies must pass a process of peer review at this point, the peer review helps decrease biasing (although it can’t eliminate it, being biased is part of being intelligent), but the odds of multiple independent research organizations being biased in the same way is much lower than an individual institution. Account for errors and selection effects in cognition is part of the scientific process now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
I’d love to discuss the American College of Pediatricians specifically (I was hoping you’d bring them up), but I’ve said enough for the moment (out of time for today, but I’d like to continue tomorrow, you seem like a reasonable person and worth discussing this with 🙂
William let’s cut to the chase: Every child, by nature, has a mother and a father. Every child. Every society has understood this and has elevated marriage as an institution because of it. Every single society. Why is this? Natural law. The universal moral law. We all “get it” in our hearts. We all get that children need their mother and their father, and it’s only due to misfortune, tragedy, or sin that children are not raised by those parents. It’s why despite the glowing reports of how great it is to grow up with “two dads” or “two moms”, Elton John can still say that “It’s going to be heartbreaking when [my son] realizes he hasn’t got a mum.” And it’s why this gay father can write what is a heartbreaking, but true, article for NYTimes, even as he tries to say that gay families should be “proud”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-misnomer-of-motherless-parenting.html?_r=0
It’s why you, William, can know instinctively that a child is better off with mother and father. It’s why Hillary Clinton can say the things that she did about the history and meaning of marriage (check the OP) and no one has yet told me why or how she got her history and understanding so wrong as to reverse her words in very recent years. It’s why the UK has passed laws forbidding anonymous sperm donors (every child has a fundamental, natural right to know and be known by his natural parents). It’s why the Church says unequivocally:
A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.” CCC #2378
It’s why despite the happy, shiny reports of some children of gay households, there is a wide and growing undercurrent of sadness and disconnection among those children, the likes of which we don’t see (as I mentioned) in loving two-parent households:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2013/06/should-children-sit-down-and-shut-up.html
You can say that I’m wrong, that the Church is wrong, and that this vast social experiment with no precedent in human history is going to turn out just beautifully, but I’m willing to bet that when we go against nature itself, and the universal moral law written onto our hearts, the outcome won’t be pretty in the end. But those who are most devastated by the fallout, in twenty, forty, or a hundred years, will be the ones to pick up and help us rebuild, as always happens when humans go off the rails.
And PS: William, I appreciate your tone and reasonableness as well. What do you think of the Regnerus studies? His scholarship was attacked, as you know.
I frequent Strange Notions (been involved in nearly every thread for the past 6 months or more) so I’ve seen all these “natural law” arguments and they are so weak it’s sad. You do realize children are in orphanages because their heterosexual parents are deadbeats right? Anyway, thanks for admitting that you are hopelessly biased and no amount of external evidence will change your mind. The status quo will change with my generation (I’m 34), the Church has already lost.
We have much bigger problems than gay marriage on the horizon. Feeding a growing population is a massive problem that “Natural Law” doesn’t even contemplate. Existential risks not only from environmental issues, but also the lingering threat of nuclear war, ect. are my primary philosophical priorities. The Catholic Church is no real help for the primary issues that concern me and the future of my children. I fear religion may blind us to what is actually important until it is too late…I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
You seem like a nice person, and I wish you the best, but it will be ok, or it won’t. If God exists, it’s in his hands. If anything my generation needs to embrace reason, critical thinking, and a search for the most accurate truths it can find. Morality can be difficult to be sure, but gay people will always be an insignificant portion of the population (less than 2%). They’ve always been here (their heyday was in ancient greece)…it’s ok 🙂
I fail to see the hate. I, too, encourage the Catholic Church to continue this course. It will result in fewer Catholics (at least in the west), which is positive in my opinion 😉 See my comment below if you’re interested in a debate on the subject.
Those are your rebuttals?
god isn’t real
Lj, sorry to tell you but you are soooo wrong……. and even if you were right at the end… It’s much more fun to believe than to not. I really hope you can give God a chance, He’ll like that, I’m sure.
best,
– a stranger that wants the best for you
Alexander – June 28…You are only partly correct….1st John 4:8b says that God is Love ..He loves us no matter what but in Matthew 5:48 it says Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect. God make all things perfect and by agreeing to Gay marriage we as Christian are admitting that God’s creation is imperfect. We love all of God’s creation and we love those who says that they are Gay, but we do not condone their lifestyles…Love the sinners but hate their sins…. and Gay lifestyle is a Sin.
Ponder on this. Will God reject married gay couples who’ve fulfilled His greatest commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself”? I bet He will accept, no wait let me rephrase; I bet He will LOVE them and welcome them to His kingdom wholeheartedly.
This is the best comment I have read so far. Very well said.
Thank you Jules. God bless
Love is willing the highest good for one another. The highest good is Heaven. Sexual sin is just like any other sin — and if we choose sin over virtue and love, then we risk separation from God. Love and truth go hand-in-hand.
Jesus had a lot to say about the nature of marriage, and it did not include homosexual acts. Take a look at all that Jesus said, not just a sentence. You can visit the link at the bottom of the OP to see what Jesus said about the nature of marriage as a conjugal union of male and female.
You’re a woman of extreme catholic faith, but you’re using it the wrong way.
“The wrong way”?—by saying that “love is willing the highest good for one another”? Or telling readers to read what Jesus said about marriage? Who’s wrong here?
Who asked you Leila.
Who asked me what, Joe?
If the adoption agencies referred to in this article were accepting federal or state funds to continue their important work, they absolutely would have forfeited any prerogative on which to reject same-sex couples as prospective parents. How much clearer does it have to be that religious institutions and their affiliates might be freer to adhere to their own beliefs if they didn’t seek financial assistance from the government? You can’t have it both ways, as Jesus pointed out with the coin of tribute. How I wish that the Church and its affiliated agencies would turn to the government and say “No thank you” to federal and state funding–then I, as a gay man who is a practicing Catholic along with my same-sex partner, will not be made to feel responsible for the consequences brought about by the discriminatory practices of faith-based services in the delivery of their mission. If the Church wishes to be truly separate from the state, as our Constitution prescribes, then I suggest that would be a giant first step in the right direction.
Actually, Steven, the government has partnered with churches because it’s impossible for the public sector to do it all (and they shouldn’t be doing it all). So, it’s a beneficial partnership. If you don’t want churches to be a part of charity, so be it. We will continue to do the best we can, as the largest charitable entity on the face of the earth.
Also, you say you are a “practicing Catholic” so I assume you are living chastely? If so, kudos to you both. We should all be willing not only to bend our will to God in obedience to our Faith, but also to die for the faith if called to. So, chastity becomes easier in that context.
Isn’t there truth that God has called us to love one another? Love is patient, love is kind, love does no envy, etc.
I’m pretty sure homosexuals can follow God’s love and not just the “love feeling” of romantic urges.
What about those heterosexual couples who married and got a divorce because they weren’t loving each other how God asks. What about those children that were abandoned, would you deny them a loving family even if they were raised by two people of the same gender?
I think you’re making the mistake of thinking that everybody in today’s society loves based on a feeling. While some people do that, not everyone. Many people actually believe in God’s word and what it means to love. Give people some credit, man.
I absolutely believe that we were made to love and be loved. I’m not sure, though, which point of the article you are rebutting with your comment? Could you clarify? Thanks!
With your discriminatory attitudes towards not only those of minority sexual orientation, but also those with disabilities, I’m not really surprised you chose a photo to illustrate your piece showing a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus and his family.
Is it blue? Isn’t it brown?
Hi Lorian! I don’t choose the pictures on this site.
Was your comment supposed to be a reasoned argument against the points I made?
A sad summary of one religion’s definition of marriage…and the clueless need to impose it on others…time to move on focus on your own life.
David, I guess you didn’t even bother to read the article. Do you go trolling from site to site and post the same things again and again when you see a headline about gay “marriage”? If you want to actually rebut or address one of the points (which were not about religious definitions at all), I’d be glad to go there with you. Blessings!
Leila, while it is admirable that you are on here responding to most of the comments, do not compound the arrogance of some of your assumptions made in your piece with more assumptions about my reading and commenting habits. To clear up the latter 1) this is the first religious-based blog I have ever commented on and 2) I did read your entire article as it was shared with me by an old-friend who used to belong to the same Catholic Church as I did growing up.
Your argument is based on the fallacy that marriage is derived from a “natural” state of things…a position held by this Church as well, and all of your other arguments rely on that same fallacy. Other churches/religions don’t see it that way, thus my comment. The fact there are people like yourself investing huge amounts of time and intellectual energy in trying to have their Church’s view enforced by the state was once baffling….but is now just sickening. Get on with life…you are just couching the same hate as others in lace and flowers to make it sound palatable as a religious “need”….but who’s “need” is met by your unfortunate prose?
So, David, go ahead and point me to that time in history, that culture, that era, where marriage was not a conjugal union (aside from two minutes ago)? Thanks so much!
Also, could you tell me why atheist regimes have “natural” marriage, but no sanctioned gay “marriage”? Thanks again!
Marriage was not even mentioned as something to “sanction” by the early Christian church until 110, and most European marriages were private matters until about 325 AD. Early Israelites had no requirements for fidelity in a relationship..and in Buddhist culture, it’s not even a sacrament and the only requirement is love…they are completely neutral to the sex of the couple. Beyond that time period, there is no written origins besides legends and fairy tales…like those in the Bible.
By definition, “conjugal” is the intimacy of the relationship within a marriage…not the basis of the definition for it. If another religion (and even many Christian churches) pronounces two people “married”, then they are by definition sharing a “conjugal union” as you put it…and their sexual orientation is not relevant.
As for “sanctioning” a marriage at all…who has the right to do that – or not? The church can say what they want about the own members….and those members are free to go somewhere else if they don’t like it. Your church has no say in what the members of another’s church do…the only reason the Christian church has any say in the matter now is because they usurped that authority less than 1800 years ago…
David, I am fascinated to hear this version of history. Can you tell me where you get your information? I’d love sources. Especially about the Catholic Church not even having sanctioned matrimony until a hundred years in (that is a new one! I have heard it all in 20 years of apologetics, but I haven’t heard that one). Also, Buddhism…. I’ve debated a nice Buddhist liberal lesbian lady for years and she has never once said that Buddhist culture (Buddhist society/nations) is completely neutral on the sex of the couple. If that is the case, when did that start? I’d love to read more on that from legit sources.
Are you saying that “conjugal” does not imply sexual intercourse/union of husband and wife? That’s an interesting take, too. Novel. What are conjugal rights, in your opinion? And the word marriage itself comes from the word “mother” implying reproduction from that union. How does that work with two men?
Leila…obviously there is no one that can compete with your mastery of detail of unrecorded history, references to sources (oh wait, you don’t have those either) and chutzpah for interpretive use of the dictionary…
In 5 years, none of this, or your writing, will be relevant…you are just going to be one of the shrinking group of “grumpy old white men” looking to hang on to your homophobia like a 1970’s Archie Bunker pining away for the good ‘ol days of interracial marriage being illegal…
But keep on writing, one day you might happen upon something suitable for framing in the dusty corner of museum where this kind of thinking will be on display for future generations…
Wow, you didn’t even attempt an answer. Interesting…
Leila..THANK YOU for your wonderful blog. This is brilliant and I couldn’t have said it better myself, god bless you for doing God’s work in spreading the truth… I copy and pasted your article here and I’ve shared it on countless websites and blogs and Facebook post, thank you thank you thank you. God bless you
To say that a quadriplegic who marries is not married because he or she cannot consummate the marriage sexually is preposterous.
Why do civil authorities annul for non-consummation?
Good job.
I liked the article, but it soft-peddled an important point and statistic. While it is true that marriages do not have to be sacramental to be valid, they do have to be the first marriage for both unless the previous marriage was annulled by the Church or ended with the death of a spouse. Half of all marriages contracted in America today, are just as fictitious in the eyes of the Church, as any gay marriage is. (And no, I am not saying that the ontological component is unimportant or that they are fictitious in the same way.). I’m just pointing out that the argument was lost because the reality is, ‘traditional marriage’ was not being defended in this long national debate. The right to marry for the 5th time after four divorces, at 2:00AM in a Las Vegas wedding chapel by a “minister” dressed as the fat Elvis, was being defended, while working to deny the small homosexual minority of the population, the same licence. “Marriage” become nothing more than a legal contract in the eyes of the law, before I was even born. The SCOTUS today simply affirmed that.
Cuddlemoose, I think you missed #7 in the article. That was the part that addressed your very points.
#3 is not accurate. Older folks are allowed to marry later in life after the loss of a spouse and no one is obligated to prove their ability to consummate their union. I have been a Roman Catholic all of my life, and my church is not so cold as to keep people in love from marrying because they cannot consummate their union in the usual way. I have never heard of any instance where the church told two people in love that they were actually “just friends” and therefore cannot marry. That is absurd. That is like saying that the church considers us to no longer be married and be “just friends” as we age, even though our marriages were previously consummated at least the required “one time”. I have never heard of anything so insulting in my entire life.
Just because you have never heard of it doesn’t make it any less true. I confirmed this with our parish priest. Why is it “insulting” simply because you do not understand it? You are missing the point. By definition, in order for a marriage to be a sacramental marriage, you must be able to consummate the marriage. If two older folks want to marry later in life, but due to age they are not able to perform the marital act, then they cannot receive a sacramental marriage. The difference between friends and lovers is the ability to perform the marital act. You are correct in that no one is “obligated to prove” it, but if it is never consummated, it is never a marriage. A priest will ask a couple if they have any obstacles to being able to consummate the marriage, trusting he will be answered truthfully, so he will not demand any “proof,” but if they say yes, he will not marry them. I would say check with your parish priest, but obviously there are priests who are disobedient to the magesterium. So maybe ask your priest not what he would do, but what does the Church teach. Assuming you are interested in the truth, of course.
Of course I am interested in the truth. Without being graphic (I am not wanting to offend anyone) everything that leads up to the actual “marital act” is also done by lovers. If that were not true, then foreplay between unmarried folks would not be considered sinful. People that cannot consummate in the traditional sense are still lovers and not “just friends”. That is what I meant when I said that it is insulting. I have lived in different parts of the country, and have definitely seen differences in teachings and in the local priests. So I do agree that we may have had different schooling on the subjects. FYI: I like your nickname. I have a 2014 Mustang. So much fun to drive. 🙂
Susan, foreplay is exactly that: It’s play before the marital act. It helps to facilitate the marital act. It is not in itself a consummation of a marriage. It is not conjugal union. You may find it insulting, but it’s standard, ancient Church teaching, and to this day (I checked my diocesan paperwork for engaged couples) a potential bride and groom are asked if they are able to consummate a marriage. Jesus himself discussed who is “capable” of marriage, and you can look into that yourself, about the sixth paragraph:
http://www.catholiclane.com/was-jesus-really-silent-on-same-sex-marriage/
Well that is definitely food for thought. It makes me sad to think that there is such a large part of the populous that does not qualify to be married in the eyes of the church (due to physical impairment). No doubt aging baby boomers will have to resort to civil ceremonies, which, as we all know, are not recognized by the church. Thank you for the additional reading.
You’re welcome. Also, remember that it’s a very small percentage (not “large part”) of the populace who are unable to achieve consummation at least once. Very, very few.
To everyone…KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE…WHO IS CHRIST JESUS…LIVE HIS WILL.
Leila Miller…you know the truth…and you very clearly know the “Truth the Way and the Life!” Gently done…and filled with God!!
This artilce speaks the TRUTH and it’s not about being Catholic, it’s about common sense and nature, and the LGBT HATE that.
I especially appreciate 8, very well explained!
Maybe a word of support from the CS resident SSA (same-sex attracted) guy is in order here. First of all, I have fought, about my own views and, yes feelings, even after returning to the Church a decade ago, in regards to this issue. A lot in fact at times. I am not a stranger to the arguments you share, nor the counter-arguments in some of your comments. Both are important, and I for one am glad we can have this discussion with some civility, something that has been missing far too often on both sides of it.
The conclusion I have always come back to though, is, does the Church have the authority to inform us on the morality of sexual activity? The answer is obviously a resounding yes. If she, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, was not given the truth on this matter in nearly 2000 years how or why should I follow her on anything else? The simple answer for me is we would not need to, nor even should we in that case. But that is not the case thankfully.
That is not tat all to say I am blind to the feelings of those among my friends, family and colleagues who are “marriage equality” supporters and why they are. I for one would not wish to go back to the days of the brilliant playwright Oscar Wylde , who, a century ago in Great Britain, had his life and family literally ripped apart as a middle-aged man due to his affection for men, and died at age 45 largely as a result. Amazingly, however, both he and his former lover were received, very much separately, into the Catholic Church before their deaths and had repudiated their earlier relationship, as well as homosexual behavior in general. Not many seem to know that but it is a matter of record.
On a secular level, the movement for “gay” rights has been sorely needed to protect those of us from that particular background in areas of employment, health care, inheritance benefits and the like, each which can be provided in other ways than the redefinition of marriage, I wish to add. What has happened, however, is, like all movements of so-called “liberation,” whether feminism, health care policies, or even animal rights, has been that good people have gone too far and are not stopping at what they originally have asked for.
In this case for instance, instead of being okay with basic societal protections as listed above, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Catholic Social Teaching overall not only allow for but encourage, the movement for basic protections from persecution and harm to “LGBT” or SSA individuals has been sabotaged by some with a militancy that never ends. Marriage is not at issue here (and never was) to many in the current movement. Control is. And that is where it is not “getting better.”
One other point–ironically it is the non-religious arguments regarding the nature of marriage, many of which you allude to here, that finally convinced me that I could no longer as a human being support the “marriage equality” movement in the first place, and that initial realization was even before I became Catholic again or intended to. All to say thanks for your dogged courage, and if that makes you a bigot, then so am I. But neither of us are. And I lived the experience as an “LGBT” activist for 15 years prior to my return to Rome. I have since been called a self-hater by some, not all, in the actively “gay” community and I genuinely understand why they think so. But I think for the first time in my life I honestly accept myself. I know I have sexual feelings and inclinations I did not particularly ask for, whether by nature or nurture or both, and which are not likely to ever leave me, at least totally, in this life. But what else I know is that I have the gift of the Sacraments, particularly Reconciliation and the Eucharist, to strengthen me when my resolve becomes weak. No one in the “marriage equality” movement could offer me that.
Richard, bless you! You are a gift to the Church and your voice needs to be heard in these confused times.
As does yours!!!
Thank you Richard for your mental and moral clarity! Your statement is amazing TRUTH…hard, difficult but clear as a bell.
Yes, I can see others in this movement trying very hard to minimize you, to yourself, and to anyone who might hear you.
The Eucharist…His body and blood…is life! You’re right, there’s nowhere else, no-one else that can give you this!
I owe you a big one…thanks again!
All I can say is thanks…God bless you Kitty!
God is clearly blessing you, Richard, and you are blessing others.
Richard, do you really think they believe you are a “self hater”? I always heard this comment as a way to cast you back into their situation…as you removing yourself from the life style threatens them. Perhaps I was wrong?
I truly do not know. The effect of the comment is certainly as you said above, but I would be slow to judge the hearts or minds of others. How someone may actually feel and what they may see can be two different things. But I think it is the thing we are taught in the pro-LGBT movement, that a person who attempts to live celibately must hate themselves. I do know that there are some who do hate themselves for feeling as they do and thus assume that all feel that same way. So I will just again say I do not know. I think every individual case is different and can only say I never did, then or now. But I am very thankful that I am, small steps at a time, walking towards Christ and away from the old life, not just in that area but overall. And that is all God expects of any of us.
Yes, of course you’re right. How can you know what’s in another’s heart. You see it is confusing to me as very cherished members of my family and among my friends are gay. I love and respect them, and their needs, but as I hear the voice of the GLBT today…I can only say the I hear enemy using them…as a group. I was told by my priest to be silent with my qualms unless asked directly for spiritual guidance, as only then will you find one who can listen.
Your choices to move to Christ Jesus and His church are light years away from their feelings. Yet, when I read what you wrote…I knew the Truth who is Jesus God with us was clearly within you. I believe I see the problem as being much larger…a very real battle for souls. The first thing lost to many…including myself…is truth! Yet Jesus IS Truth…so the farther we distance ourselves from truth..the fainter Jesus’s voice becomes..and soon all truth is relative…ie: unimportant.
To live the Truth..I have learned…requires great personal sacrifice. You pay your dues and I mine! I waited, locked outside of communion for many years…as I had remarried w/o a church annulment! This became very painful to me, but I waited years so as to live within church doctrine…and Jesus’s will. I had lived as the world lives…and broken, bent, and manipulated rules to meet my needs my entire life! Now the Triune God called me to His truth…and asked me to make sacrifices on His account. I see that He has asked the same from you! I rejoice with you to have received this gift from Our Father, but I was elated to find another called to sacrificial love…and in your case, the sacrifice makes you the “voice of one calling in the wilderness.” God Bless You….Kitty
Again many thanks for that timely message on this crazy day in US history. God bless, and may we both move forward. Peace to you!
Thanks, Richard, for your eloquent witness. Oh, how we need it now.
Yes, we need to love our gay brothers and sisters and welcome them into the fold. Keep writing and commenting. We need you.
Many humble thanks, Jamey! God bless.
Excellent article, Leila. Clear and thorough. You’ve done us all a favor.
Terrific, Leila, as always!
Bravo, Leila! Cheering loudly for such clarity and directness. Well said, and said with love.
Reasons to Believe in Jesus
Reasons to believe Jesus is alive in a new life with God can be found in quotes from two prominent atheists and a biology textbook.
Thus the passion of man is the reverse of that of Christ, for man loses himself as man in order that God may be born. But the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain. Man is a useless passion. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Washington Square Press, p. 784)
Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)
And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )
Sartre speaks of the “passion of man,” not the passion of Christians. He is acknowledging that all religions east and west believe there is a transcendental reality and that perfect fulfillment comes from being united with this reality after we die. He then defines this passion with a reference to Christian doctrine which means he is acknowledging the historical reasons for believing in Jesus. He does not deny God exists. He is only saying the concept of God is contradictory. He then admits that since life ends in the grave, it has no meaning.
From the title of the book, you can see that Nagel understands that humans are embodied sprits and that the humans soul is spiritual. He says, however, that dualism and idealism are “traditional” alternatives to materialism. Dualism and idealism are just bright ideas from Descartes and Berkeley. The traditional alternative to materialism is monism. According to Thomas Aquinas unity is the transcendental property of being. Campbell does not even grasp the concept of monism. The only theories he grasps are dualism and materialism.
If all atheists were like Sartre, it would be an obstacle to faith. An important reason to believe in Jesus is that practically all atheists are like Nagel and Campbell, not like Sartre.
by David Roemer
347-417-4703
David Roemer
http://www.newevangelization.info
And this has what to do with the post on “gay marriage”? Sartre also said in “No Exist” ….”hell is just other people….” So?
” It’s like asking why I am against square circles.”
Vitruvian Man, Da Vinci’s study of proportions, employs a square circle. 🙂
So you believe that circles can be square?
You will most likely be reincarnated and placed in situations
that will help you develop a sense of humor that is proportional
to your sense of righteousness.
My apologies, dear james! I am apparently not as well-educated or sublime as you are, so I missed the joke! Please forgive. 😉
And, we Catholics know that there is no such thing as reincarnation. And we also know that people who appoint themselves their own pope (i.e. dissenting Catholics) are more self-righteous than anyone, because they defer to and obey only themselves. 😉
See, I’m being funny!
Cynical, but it will do, dear Leila.
I am forever grateful for your magnanimity, james.
Now that’s humorous. You can make this vale of tears your last stop.
Will do, Pope james. 😉
I remember very clearly the good Sisters of Notre Dame explaining that there
has never been a Pope James and legend has it when there is, it will be the
last pope.
I think people say that about a Pope Peter. It’s interesting but yes, just a legend or speculation.
Even if what you posit were true, which I would dispute in mostly every area, why should two same sex partners in a committed relationship be denied the following :
Taken from: http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone, according to a General Accounting Office assessment made in 2004. [86] Benefits only available to married couples include hospital visitation during an illness, the option of filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, and bereavement leave and inheritance rights if a partner dies. [6] [95] Married couples also have access to protections if the relationship ends, such as child custody, spousal or child support, and an equitable division of property.[93] Married couples in the US armed forces are offered health insurance and other benefits unavailable to domestic partners. [125] The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Labor also recognize married couples, for the purpose of granting tax, retirement and health insurance benefits. [126] The US federal government does not grant equivalent benefits to gay couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships. [153] [154]An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetimes compared with married heterosexual couples. [7] A Jan. 2014 analysis published by the Atlantic concluded that unmarried women pay up to one million dollars more over their lifetimes than married women for healthcare, taxes, and other expenses. [94]
Should the people that you are targeted be denied these rights? Is there not a right to equal protection under the law? Is not government we the people, of the people and by the people and every poll indicates support of gay marriage even among Catholics? Why would you choose to deny good people in committed relationships rights of all other people in committed relationships? It’s not about religious belief systems, it’s about equity.
Phil, she already answered that question in the article. Perhaps you should try actually reading it first?
No she did not address the inequity issues confronting committed same same couples, ie insurance, inheritance, custody, medical decisions, etc. She did not address imperialistic ableism….perhaps you should carefully read the article. Sorry, JoAnna, I did not deal with issues or morality, natural evolution of marriage or coupling, religion, etc., any topics she covered.
Phil, first you need to answer: What is the nature of marriage? Define marriage.
The nature of marriage evolves: it began as building clan size, it was viewed as possession of a commodity, it was viewed as pure pleasure, it was viewed as political enhancement, it was viewed as status, it was viewed as involuntary servitude, the OT spoke of great men with several wives and many concubines.Paul had a particularly notion of marriage, etc.
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
Today, I believe that there is civil marriage and sacramental matrimony. One is sanctioned by the government; the other is sanctioned by the government and rules and disciplines of a particular church. Basically,today marriage is a commitment between two people to love each other exclusively and to have a family if they wish. This commitment is granted certain rights and privileges by the government. Marriage has evolved thru the ages as human consciousness has evolved and will continue to evolve. Today marriage is not what it will be centuries from now.
The nature of marriage is neither solely defined by nature, nor the RCC, nor any cult or sect, nor any government. It is ultimately defined by the committed relationship of people.
“Basically,today marriage is a commitment between two people to love each other exclusively and to have a family if they wish. ”
Two people? One adult, one minor? Siblings? Other relatives?
And watch out, because the Throuples are coming quickly and will demand their “marriage” too.
To love each other exclusively? So, open marriages are not marriages? Polygamy? And why does marriage have to be until death, anyway? Why not just make it a yearly renewable contract, and be able to walk away anytime you want? Sure would change the landscape of divorce, wouldn’t it? (Poor divorce lawyers!)
To have a family if they wish… but two men cannot have children, nor can two women. Manufacturing children in order to satisfy the wants of such adults is crass and demeaning to humanity. It should never, ever be encouraged and normalized as it has been in our society. Shame on us.
No, Phil, that definition of marriage will never do. It completely guts marriage of its meaning and purpose.
Basically means basically…your turn for a comprehensive definition of marriage with every detail spelled out on the civil and sacramental level.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for life, open to life, for the mutual benefit of the spouses and the children which are the fruit of their union.
Jennifer, how about this from 1 Kings 11:3, talk about gutting marriage..
“Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.”
And you’re worried about today! And Solomon was a biblical wise man! How times change and how definitions evolve.
Solomon was not wise in this instance. Even the verse you quote indicates his many marriages were what brought about his spiritual downfall. And God had already warned the Israelites not to have too many wives. From the first plural marriage in the Bible with Abraham, there were nothing but problems as a result of polygamy.
My point is that marriage as a construct continues to evolve…you are right that God warms Israelites not to have TOO MANY wifes, but He ok’ed more than one.
By Genesis 4, you have Cain’s son Lamech taking two wives. The patriarchs Genesis 16:3and Genesis 29:16-30themselves had multiple wives and concubines. Technically, the practice was polygyny. In other words, men could have more than one wife, but not the other way around (polyandry).
Moses had two wives as well. The Mosaic Law likewise accommodated the practice of marrying more than one wife, including captured prisoners from foreign conquests (Deuteronomy 21:1-17). It also made provisions for continuing the family line by marrying a brother’s wife if he died without producing heirs (Deuteronomy 25:5-12). And the stories keep coming: Gideon, one of Israel’s champions, had many wives; Elkanah, a presumably godly man and the father of Samuel, had two wives.
Hence my theory is that marriage evolves through Scripture as we;; as society. Things change and continue to change.
Yes, the Mosaic Law allowed things that Christ did not “because of the hardness of their hearts.” But Jesus’ teaching went back to the beginning, when God made one man and one woman before the Fall into sin. After Adam and Eve sinned, standards fell. Throughout the OT, the direction was towards restoring the original state of morality. This original ideal was taught by Christ. You are saying that society “evolved” in one direction towards monogamy as taught by Christ, then “evolved” in the completely opposite direction to the point where not even a man and woman are needed any more. This is not evolution. It is a complete about-face and abandonment of Christ’s teaching.
Jesus went back to the beginning?, then
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)
The beginning was written 4000 years ago and homo sapiens sapiens developed behavioral normalcy 65,000 years ago. So Genesis records events from 65,000 BCE?
Phil, the meaning of my words is patently obvious. Subtly mocking my comment does not promote your argument. Tell me where the Law and the Prophets say that it is a good thing to have more than one wife?
Connie-He’s mocking your comments, because he’s a homosexual. HE’S right and YOU’RE wrong, that’s what he’s saying. He can quote scripture until cows fly, but he has no understanding of what he’s quoting, NONE He’s a homosexual who doesn’t want to hear that what he’s doing is unnatural. He wants your approval, and that of everyone else. Instead of debating with him, just pray for him, and let God do the rest, because he’s not going to back down until you give him your blessing and tell him that what he’s doing is okay, because THAT’S what he wants you to tell him. I know that’s not going to happen, but that’s what all LGBT’s want, APPROVAL. He has no clue what marriage is, none. He can say he does, but he doesn’t. The marriage act, sexual intercourse can ONLY be carried out by a man and a woman, where they become one flesh, and there is not a single homosexual in the universe who can accomplish that, ever. Marriage can ONLY be consummated in this way, and therefor homosexuals have no marriage, because they cannot have intercourse, the conjugal act cannot be carried out, because it’s physically impossible.
Children cannot be a product of a homosexual “relationship”, because same sex can’t procreate. Children then become a product of science, they become a commodity, a door prize if you will, and NOT the product of the NATURAL sexual act of love making between a husband and wife, where sperm meets egg and a new life is created. Homosexuals will never have that, it’s impossible. What REALLY irkes me about homosexuals wanting to bring children into their unnatural environment is that they feel some entitlement to kids. Children are also victims of the homosexual community, because they are being DEPRIVED of the same sex parent, and that’s VITAL to the upbringing of healthy children. Only a mother can give her daughter what a father can’t and visa versa, but the homosexual doesn’t want to hear that either. Children are deliberately CHEATED out of a mother and a father, and that’s not right. It’s INCREDIBLY selfish.
Now that SS”M” is the law of the land, as someone else pointed out, all other unnatural relatiionships, pedophilia, rapists, incest, etc will ALL start demanding rights for their mental illnesses as well. That’s where all this is leading. The homosexuals will then start to fight against that, because they wanted marriage just like what a heterosexual couple has, but they will never have marriage, because it can’t exist between same sex, it’s not possible.
What he’s doing is telling God to screw himself and that God is wrong and PHIL is right, and no one is going to tell Phil that being intimate with another man is wrong. Pray for both of them, and stop debating, it will get you no where. You may plant a seed, but at the same time the LGBT are notorious for mocking and calling people that don’t agree with them names. It’s interesting how they insist on tolerance for their behavior, but if you dare disagree with with them, you’re now intolerant. You’re ONLY tolerant IF you agree with them. They are complete hypocrits. There are MANY LGBT’s in this world who DO NOT engage in or practice unnatural relationships, because they know it’s not right or moral and it goes against the very nature of our bodies and the way they were designed by God to operate on a sexual basis. Not all LGBT’s are hypocrites, but a lot of them are. It’s very sad.
This is NOT a Catholic thing, it’s just plain COMMON SENSE. Electronic parts ALL have a male and female parts to them, because that’s how it works. A lock has a key, because you can’t open a lock without a key. Pipes have male and female parts otherwise they wouldn’t work. Even our cars ignitions have male and female parts. You have to have a key to put into the ignition in order to make the car start. Homosexuals HATE the truth of nature.
Dear Guest …. you are a LIAR! Hence your entire diatribe is false. I am not gay. To help you understand, I am 67 years old. I have been married to the same woman for 35 years. I have a 31 year accomplished daughter and a 29 year old son for whom I care 24/7 who is a non-comminicative spastic quadriplegic as the result of a summer camp accident where he was entrapped in a river for 25 minutes with oxygen. Because I vehemently support gay rights, marriage and equity does not allow you to make a leap to “out” me as a homosexual, not that it matters. I would consider your statement as defamatory if I felt that gay was a bad thing. You do owe me an apology for publically spreading a lie. Oh, isn’t lying a sin for Catholics? Don’t you people call that calumny? As you only make your false allegation by a ridiculous name as “guest.” I cannot have a personal conversation about calumny. You can contact me at [email protected] and offer to make things right!
How was that person a liar? They did not know you were not gay. You sound and argue as if you were. And because they were mistaken in one point does not invalidate the rest of the argument. You will still have to face God yourself and argue that His original creation of marriage was somehow flawed.
When having a dialogue about the nature of marriage, to state without equivocation “He’s mocking your comments, because he’s a homosexual. ” is an outright light and it is CALUMNY. If I were a philosopher I would be kind and say the Guest uses “ad hominen” argumentation. 68% of self-identified Catholics support gay marriage, so Guest can not simply b e mistaken because of my arguments for justice and equity. Guest called me a homosexual to destroy my arguments and reputation. without any attempt to determine the truth, which could easily do by googling my name. You cannot defend a person who lies. And I have no problem facing my God, liars should!
I am Catholic and I will continue to fight for equal rights of not only for the LGBT community but for ALL human kind.
I agree with you Phil all the way 🙂
Love ya!!!!!
https://vimeo.com/93079367
I recommend that you watch this most informative film.
You are a Catholic who is at complete odds with your own professed Faith on a matter of mortal (deadly) sin. And if you promote and encourage mortal sin willfully and knowingly, it’s a mortal sin for you, too. Does that make you concerned at all? And if not, then why are you Catholic? What of integrity?
Phil is not interested in the truth but in spinning a means to his (or her) desired conclusion. Ignore!
Phil, AOL account? Come on man, you’re better than that.
ok, then, how about [email protected]
Good man!
Guest I might add that, coming from that background, I get the struggles and pain that are very real in the actively LGBT communities. You are reducing an entire group of people to your obvious anger. Possibly talk to some people who have come from that background and you will find that many of your accusations are not based upon fact. And the ones that are, we are asked to present them in love and kindness. That is the approach we as Catholics and other Christians are called upon to use. Your words will win no one except those who do honestly hate others of my background. As a celibate Catholic Christian, SSA, who opposed the Friday decision by the US Supreme Court just as you did, I am in any case more interested in winning the hearts and souls of my actively LGBT brothers and sisters rather than turning it into a “we/they” argument constantly. Do you wonder why so many leave the Church or never enter? It is not a surprise if a narrative such as yours is what we would be greeted with. Most LGBT persons simply want to live their lives, not to silence everyone else. Certainly a few do. But I recall to this moment the day I returned to the Church and even after that first confession in 35 years I still was frightened every time I went to Mass, thinking I would not be really accepted or embraced due to my background. That is what comments such as yours, framed as they are, do to others. Please re-think it. NOT all of your points, but how you present them. God bless.
How can some people be so undeniably smart in debate and obviously desperate miss doing an in-depth study of the Scriptures. ouch to those who keep pushing that a lock can open another lock. STILL ends in a dead-end. as easy as don’t argue with those who are not grounded in Biblical faith.
Excellent retort.
Well said, you nailed it.
The LGBT community behave like spoilt little brats who can’t get what they (think) they want..and they reject the TRUTH.
Assisted by the lefty MSM, they are using every dirty trick in an attempt to wear down the powers that be to get what they want.
Like any spoilt brat, they need a good spanking!
The only “law of the prophets Jesus addressed was marriage and divorce! He, being God , clearly knew this argument would exist…and he said “If a man put away his WIFE…” not his partner or spouse etc! He put male and female in the marital context…and no other combinations. I take Jesus…”The Way, the TRUTH and the Life…at His word.
It’s not as if the Trinity had differing ideas…”If you have seen me, you have seen the Father..” I insist on being in agreement with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and no amount of twisting and turning can obviate perfect Truth!
Phil, absolutely, polygamy is a type of marriage, once allowed (due to the “hardness of their hearts”), but never ideal and now illicit. Even then, marriage was a conjugal union, and the man was married to each individual woman (the women were not married to each other). It was always conjugal, always heterosexual, even when it was not ideal or as God designed it.
Why won’t you address that point, ever?
I did address it, I said it is illegal,now in the US so it’s not ok now. Now address your assertions about the imperialistic view of marriage and the disabled….remember by ableism argument?
You absolutely did not address the fact that marriage has always been a conjugal union. Please address it.
I addressed your question in number 3 in the OP. If that does not satisfy you, then it’s simply because your definition of marriage is different from the concept of a conjugal union. You said that: “Basically, today marriage is a commitment between two people to love each other exclusively and to have a family if they wish. ” But of course, this can apply to siblings (meaning platonic sisters, even), or groups of more than one, or anyone, really. So, you are talking about some arrangement that is not actually “marriage”, but something new and different. So, why don’t we use a different word for what you are wanting? If you want to amend your definition of marriage, please do.
You are wrong. Marriage, itself, did not change. The definition of marriage in all cultures — irrespective of religion or government, which it precedes — is that marriage is between one and and one woman and lasts for life. Different cultures have varied this a little, such as by allowing men more than one wife, or allowing marriages to be considered “over” for various reasons. But the essence of marriage — one man, one woman, and for life (unless certain culturally accepted things nullified the marriage) — is universal.
One man and one woman for life?
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon’s son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons….”
Phil, morality is not ethics…and morality really does not evolve..it simply is. If one needs legality…go…get it! But don’t put me in the position of needing/being forced to validate you in my church. Some things are intrinsic to human law…heterosexuality is one. Why? Because if Homosexuality were the norm…we’d be extinct.
“But don’t put me in the position of needing/being forced to validate you in my church.” Please explain what you mean…..
Sorry, I cannot right now…I am busy being in awe of Richard Evans. Maybe some other time.
Hopefully, you are done being in awe and can answer my simple question? Thank you!
I’ll never be finished being in awe of him. I believe you already know what I mean. I am not going to engage you however, I pray for you.
Ok, remain in awe. But I honestly do not know what you mean, but I would like to know. Please do not pray for me unless you tell me what you are praying for on my behalf!
Lamech? Do you know that Lamech is the epitome of evil in the Bible? He represents evil having reached it’s ugly perfection precisely because he had multiple wives and killed a man for having bumped up against him. He says, “If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.” Seven being a number representing perfection or wholeness i.e. perfect vengeance or complete vengeance. It is to this man that Jesus was referring when he was asked how many times must someone forgive their neighbor and he replies, “not seven times, but seven times seventy times” thus, perfect forgiveness. Yes, the patriarchs had multiple wives, but it was against God’s law that they did so. In other words, they sinned by doing so. And if you read the whole of Genesis, you will see that having the multiple wives brought about discord and disharmony in their families. It was not a good thing!
Nowhere in Deuteronomy 21:10-17 is there mention of more than one wife. The same with Deuternonomy 25:5-12. You are reading into the text what you want to see. But what you want to see is simply not there! As for all of the other people you mention, no where does it say that these marriages were good and proper. They were all outside of God’s prescript of what marriage is. Marriage didn’t evolve throughout scripture as if God let it change according to the times. Instead, people ignored what God wanted and did what they wanted.
Quite strange that you would quote the god of the OT. Now tell me human consciousness has not evolved in all areas.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins
OR
“The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Now convince me human consciousness in all areas has not evolved…..
Nonsense remains nonsense, even when spoken by famous scientists.
– John Lennox, professor of mathematics and philosophy at Oxford University
Quotes from known vocal atheists, does not help your argument. Interpretations from these men are obviously biased.
One should always look to the veracity of a statement irrespective of a person’s religious or philosophical personal belief system. BTW Hitchens is not an atheist, but a self-described anti-theist.
Phil — In the OT there are all kinds of marriages…only ONE — the union of one man and one woman — was established before the Fall. Jesus confirmed as much in the Gospel.
You are dead wrong. God NEVER ok’d extra-curricular wives and concubines in the OT. He allowed them to exist, but His standard goes right to the beginning of Genesis where He said that a man will leave his family and cling to this WIFE, NOT wives. Polygamy was the practice of ALL of the eastern cultures of that time, and God let it exist in Israel but only to illustrate the folly of such arrangements and so they serve as an example of how NOT to conduct the marriage relationship. He knows in His infinite wisdom that humans learn best by experience and as experience IS the best teacher, we see from those OT relationships why God’s original design of one man and one woman was far superior to any that humans had constructed. Nothing “evolved” in the Bible regarding marriage at all. Further, in the NT, we see a continuation of God’s original declaration for WHO gets married with instructions given to husband and wife, not husband and WIVES, or husbands and WIFE. If you criticize, criticize with righteous judgment, with a little context and knowledge of eastern customs of the time thrown into the mix.
I love it when people say “you are wrong.” A common Catholic phrase ehich kills dialogue. God never, but allowed? Is your version of God as athe ultimate puppet master? An Genesis, its the Jewish creation myth….every religion has one…and there are thousands. Do a bit is study of Jewish culture and normadic times before you make sweeping pronouncements.
God played divorce too but he hates divorce. He even threatened to anniliate his people more than once and called them a stiff necked people who do what they want. You can think what you want but I will listen to God and I have had to stop stoning in some areas that was hard to do.
“God played divorce?” “and I have had to stop stoning in some areas that was hard to do.” I have absolutely no idea what you are saying….
To constantly debate with Phil is pointless. He’s a homosexual and he doesn’t want the truth, the facts, he wants you to praise and condone his fake marriage. He’ll use scripture and he’ll refer to God, but he has absolutely no clue what he’s talking about. Two penises can’t produce a child, he knows that, but he doesn’t care, because his and his homosexual partner are doing “what feels good”. He’s living a lie and he knows that, but if he were to agree with you, then that would mean that he knows that being a homosexual and being in an active unnatural relationship is wrong, and he’s not going to do that, because that would mean he would have to agree with you. That’s how satan works on those who deny God and nature. He’ll have a come back for EVERY comment made against him, how other people are wrong and HE’S RIGHT. He’ll continue to refer to scripture even though he has no clue what the correct interpretation is saying. He doesn’t get it, so he’s going to continue to fight with you.
Solomon had more than one marriage at a time. This did not work out very well, but allowing men more than one wife (whether in general, or just for certain important men) is something that many cultures have done over time. It does not, however, change the meaning of marriage — each marriage Solomon contracted was between him (one man) and a woman. It was not a group marriage (impossible) or a same-sex marriage (equally impossible).
Children in a covenant marriage…is the result of conjugal love between two people. While all life is precious to God. All methods of procreation are not! Two people…not three…or more.
not all gay couples “manufacture” children. Many adopt from people who are no longer able to take care of their child. How do you feel about that?
Don’t be stupid. you know good and well Phil meant two of age consenting adults that love each other enough to live together for the rest of their lives. They want the legal protection that allows them to make excusive decisions for each other in emergencies and they want protection from decimation that happens all to much. As far as children, you would rather have a child homeless and hungry or passed through the state homes and abused by foster home parents than to have them adopted to a loving same sex household capable of raising beautiful children. Ill ask you this, Dose that not sound backwards to you? on another front you assume that everyone in the world is Christian, well that’s not the way the world works honey. Please grow up and open your closed mind for a bit and see the world for what it is.
What you did was make an unfair comparison in your argument, which anyone can do to make their position sound better. Is it better to have an abusive gay couple beat their adopted child in their home, or have it protected by the state from the abuse, and possibly go to a loving foster family, and be adopted by loving Christian parents?
So if it is not directly affecting you, why does it matter? Worry about worse things! Maybe within the Catholic Church!
It can affect anyone and everyone in so many different and adverse ways. This IS one of the “worse things”.
Further, to think someone shouldn’t concern themselves with something very important because it may not directly affect them is selfish and foolish. Surely you can come up with some examples of this.
Actually, marriage may have been all those things, but you notice what it never has been? It’s never been about men together or women together. You said as much with all your descriptions. At base, marriage across the board, across history, and across cultures, has been a conjugal union, and you have yet to acknowledge that. If you want to change its nature and open it up to anything, then why two? Why only adults? Why only humans? Anything less than “marriage equality” is not “marriage equality”, right?
It is now…notice the word I repeatedly used…..evolving as human consciousness evolves. To day 70% of the US population live in states and territories where gay marriage is legal….oh, yes and there is Ireland and more will come,,,,Germany is next. Times change, evolve and adding the “slippery slope argument” of interspecies marriage only validates Singer which we both detest. It’s ok that you are against the notion; it’s ok that I am supportive of the notion. The Source loves us both equally because in the next life there will be no marriage, no female nor male…so it will cease to be an issue. Blessings to you!
Whoa, whoa, whoa…. “no male and female” in heaven? Um, wrong. We will be resurrected with our transfigured bodies. Are you trying to say that we will be “less” of what we were when we are in Heaven? Are you implying that the Blessed Mother is no longer a woman? Or that Jesus Christ is not in a male body, fully a man? That is a deep, deep heresy.
There will be no marriage in Heaven because the very thing that marriage points to (union with God) will be completed. And the very purpose of marriage/sex will not be needed in Heaven — procreation only happens on earth.
Also, your point about the “evolution” (and since when does that happen quickly, according to a political cycle?) is not convincing, as many people “quickly evolved” to accept the evil of abortion once the elites pushed and instated it.
Well, Leila, it’s what the Bible says: Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Sorry about my heresy, but spiritual beings are pure spirit and spirit ain’t got no gender. We use he/she with regards to God, Jesus, Mary (not sure about the Holy Spirit) because people need to anthropomorphize spirits and make statutes and pictures of spiritual beings; it’s all they understand..
As for your transfigured bodies theology, I must also be a heretic with Benedict 16, In “Introduction to Christianity”, Ratzinger explicitly denies the resurrection of the body. ‘It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible’. He says that the word body, or flesh, in the phrase, the resurrection of the body, ‘in effect means “the world of man” . . . [it is] not meant in the sense of a corporality isolated from the soul’ (pp 240-41). Now if he is also a heretic, he would be an anti-pope (emeritus) as our” friends” at the Most Holy Family Monastery in Fillmore, NY claim….you know those wacko sedevancantists.
Evolution has been slow and is speeding up, it’s real and it’s ok if you reject my theory, I am not offended.
I have that book. True, much of how he writes is above my head as his understanding of God is so much clearer and deeper than mine, but I’m sure this would’ve stuck out to me had I read it. Considering the only place I can find that quote is from anti-Catholic pages, I can’t say it holds any weight.
Here are the quotes and the page numbers and an explaination for a non-theologian
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/evolutionary-resurrection-benedict-xvi
Phil, there is nothing in that article that in any way, shape, or form denies the resurrection of the body. Zero.
Phil, my friend, you have jumped the shark. Seriously? You think that Pope Benedict rejects the resurrection of the body, which is such a pillar of the faith that it’s in the ancient Creeds? You must be kidding, seriously.
If you are not kidding, you might want to consult the Catechism on your facts:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a11.htm
As for “neither slave nor free, woman or man” etc…. Phil, this means that all have equal dignity in the eyes of the Father. All humans are equal in dignity and can achieve salvation and holiness, no matter our state in life or our sex or our nationality. Oh, Phil. Please, educate yourself even a tiny bit on the Catholic Faith before commenting on it. It will make you more credible.
When people become snarky I leave the dialogue …blessings to you!
I promise you I was not being snarky. I was earnestly floored and earnestly asking. I truly, sincerely cannot believe what I read from you, the claim that Catholics or at least Pope Benedict denies the Resurrection of the Body, and the idea that we will not be male or female in Heaven. I was shocked, because I had remembered from our previous conversations that you had at least a working knowledge of Catholicism. It’s true that I may have been thinking of someone else. I do a lot of dialoguing, and perhaps I’ve confused you with someone else.
Phil you come across as “snarky” over and over in these posts that I have read, and to accuse others is hypocritical. It seems to me you ran out of arguments. Sometimes you just have to admit defeat! God’s blessings to you! You have strengthened my faith in the catholic church
Leila, see my comment above and maybe I can give you a deeper understanding of this passage. I wrote an article on this years ago in my apologetic newsletter. It’s not really about our dignity, it’s about whether or not women, slaves, and Gentiles can be saved at all.
Connie, yes! Amen! Thanks for that better explanation and understanding. Exactly right.
could i request a copy of your apologetic newslwtter
Ronaldo, this is something I did in the ’90s. I focus on writing about spirituality now. However, if you’d like a copy of the article I wrote on this particular passage, I could dig it out and send it to you. You could message me on Facebook or email me through my blog Contemplative Homeschool. I hesitate to post my email here since I don’t want want a barrage of messages against try marriage.
The Galatians passage is talking about who is able to inherit the promises in the NT. In the OT, Gentiles, slaves, and women could not be heirs except in a few very limited circumstances. In the Gospel age, they are “sons” of God and can thus inherit His promise of eternal life. Read the whole letter and you will see the context. It’s not about God literally erasing all distinctions between people.
Boom! Yes. Thank you.
Ok Phil, first of all, thanks, because I don’t always find such commitment or interest in really giving arguments when discussing with people who share your point of view, as you probably won’t also see sometimes in people who shares mine.
You can give all the quotes you want about the Bible, but it needs understanding. In order to reach it there have been during this last 2000 years, since the begining of Christianity, people who have studied it for their entire lifes, as well as councils and synods to discuss some of their meanings.
There are some parts which are easy to understand, others that evolve (men weren’t the same 2000 years ago, nor 2000 years before that, but morals can’t change as they are practically a definition of what we really are. But some of the quotes you can find, accepted by all the christians who met Jesus say:
Matthew 16:19
I
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
loosed in heaven.”
John 20:23
If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
So it’s up to the Church and the Pope to interpret the Bible, not to you, nor me. Of course we can have our personal opinions, but according to the Bible itself, if we want to be Christians, we have to accep it. But luckily, Christian is a rational faith so you can find books and books of reasoning analyzing and interpreting those ideas during this centuries and see that after a strong confrontation with other ideas, the only ones that stand a with full logicall strength are the ones presented by the Church.
The good point is, you don’t have to believe any of this at all, you can choose not to be Christinan, and not to follow this faith, which in my opinion is not the best idea, and not what I would recomend you. But we are free, and thats a good thing. You do not need to be Christian if you don’t want to.
But please, no matter what you believe, keep arguing. I believe the world only gets better when different ideas are shared and discussed: even if none of us changes our opinions, we can both learn something at least about the others point of view.
Thanks for the civil and thought reply, Roy. I beg to disagree that the Bible needs t be interpreted over time by Popes, councils, etc. The real word of God has to have written for all people to understand. It was written for the common man and woman which is why Christ spoke to the common people in parables…that they could understand and accept.
We know that there were countless gospels over the first centuries and Irenaeus put a set together. We do know that no autographs exist and we know that the Bible was interpolated as was Testimonium Flavium in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus and a paragraph by Tacitus which mentioned “Chrestus.”
In any event morals did evolve. The OT clearly provides a warrant for genocide to Israelites against the Cannanites and other genocidal warrants. Abraham was ordered by God in Genesis to gut his first son as sacrifice. Today, in anyone’s morals filicide is murder and genocide is a crime against humanity. I could go on about bride-price and the rebellion about selling daughters. My thesis is the Bible should be a living document for the common man, not the theologian. Living documents evolve in order to thrive and have meaning. Things always change and the only sin is nostalgia for the ways of the past.
Respectfully……
Matthew 13
“10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heavenhas been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
So, accoording to His own words, the parables are to be understood, and were only completely explained, to the Apostles.
There might be many gospels, but the point is: only those 4 are scientifically accurate between them, accurate with their time, and so near to the time they happened, as well as logically consistent. It is important to determine that (that’s why the Letters are so important), otherwise any of the could be valid, and so, any Gospel writen by anybody anytime.
There’s something I do not understand: why when Jesus says “love each other” (from that point of view) he was right, or it is suposed to be true, and, even after a rigurous historical analysis, those other statements i present are not valid, or true?
About morals. Well, of course in a society, the concept of moral might evolve, but you must agree, the moral itself, what’s right or wrong, does not deppend on anything and must be always the same: if something is wrong today, it was wrong 10000 years ago, no matter if they knew it or not. A moral that changes makes no sense because then any true can be changed later. Was it right to enslave people, even if all the society accepted it or believed it? No, because we have an inmutable dignity. Our value does not change, therefore moral “rules” can’t change. Things are good or bad appart from our believes, even when we might be wrong. It is not nostalgia, it is accepting reality. Gravity won’t change no matter what, fisical laws will stay the same untill our universe die. As I said, morals can’t change, first because they describe a reality, they describe what we are, adn second because if they changed, anything could be right or wrong given the time.
The Bible is a living document for everyone, but I believe not in the way you mean it. If things such as this changed meaning with time, then they wouldn’t have any meaning at all, because their meaning could be anything.
Also, you can’t compare things as the related in the Old Testament, because they are supposed to be orders given by God. Is is bad for God to kill? That makes nonesense, you could argue that any death is permited by God itself and therefore caused by him. The only purpose of life (from a Christian point of view) is the purpose given by Christ, which is to fulfil His plan and end with him. So, when a life fulfills its meaning, theres no sense to stay in this plane. Whio decides the end of its purpose? God. We are His creatures, we can’t kill each others because we are equal under Him, because killing someone is wishing in a practical way for his nonexistence and so denying what God wants, but we can kill animals to eat, for example, because they are under us. The wrong in killoing is at the end: not wanting what God wants, finishing a life before it has used the time it had to reach God, the only meaning (always from a Christian point of view) is that. So you can’t state that when God kills someone, no matter how, something wrong is being made, nor that it changes anything. Killing each others is still wrong then and now, but because it is up to Him to decide when our lives end. And only because of that.
Thanks again for sharing your ideas with me.
Morals never evolve.
“marriage is a commitment between two people to love each other exclusively”.
So you would deny marriage to polygamists?
And, to quote a famous philosopher, “What is love?”
Yup, it’s illegal in the US
Marriage has meant the same thing, in all cultures and religion, in all of recorded history. So no, it doesn’t “evolve.”
Try googling “levirate marriage” and then make the same assertion. That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. I am providing you proof that you are inaccurate.
Phil, a levirate marriage was a conjugal union. So, you have proven nothing.
Why aren’t you truthful and admit you do not believe in the teaching of Christ and leave it at that? You can’t change it.
Christ didn’t talk about gays because it wasn’t an issue. And no I won’t leave it that and neither did SCOTUS. Christ was NOT a bigot. Gay marriage has evolved to be legal in every state…that is cause for joy! If you would like a lesson on scriptural interpolation, please ask!
Phil, are you quite sure that Jesus did not speak to the heterosexual, conjugal nature of marriage?
Phil, what church are you starting? Since you have all the answers, she we follow you as did the people that followed Jim Jones? Obviously you know more on morality than all our ancestors combined.
the nature of marriage does NOT evolve. Ever. Only perceptions of it do.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismised without evidence.
What does that have to do with whether a same sex couple should be allowed to get a marriage certificate at the clerk of courts office, file a joint tax return, or access other legal benefits available to married couples?
Civil marriage is whatever unions the government decides to recognize. You are making a philosophical argument for a legal issue. If you were talking about why gay couples should not have a Catholic wedding or whether a gay union is inferior to a heterosexual union, you would have a valid points. But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether a same sex couple should be able to get a marriage license so that they can have access to certain legal benefits.
Legally recognizing gay unions is of great importance to the gay couples and of negligible cost to everyone else, conservative hyperventilating notwithstanding.
First, it goes against natural law. Nature, whether through evolution or design, puts male and female together biologically. They’re complimentary for the propagation of the species. The parts fit. That’s why they’re called “reproduction organs.” In humans male and female are necessary for the conjugal act which can lead to children.
The state has recognized the family as a good, the foundation of society, and the creation and nurturing of children as a good for the propagation of the society. That’s one of the reasons it gives tax breaks to families. Insurance benefits are up to the company unless it’s state sponsored insurance.
Which brings us to the second reason, which we as citizens have a say in our laws, our making of Constitutional rights, and tax codes.
Third, making same-same sex “marriage” a Constitutional right could force our churches or other houses of worship to conduct same-sex “marriages.” Justice Scalia said at the hearing, “If this becomes a Constitutional right, I don’t see how you could allow a minister to say, ‘I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry 2 men.’”
Also, religious institutions could lose their tax-exempt status if they only taught traditional family. The SSM lawyer was asked at the hearing if this would happen and he said, “It would be an issue.”
And lastly, it could hardly be called intelligent to design your own extinction, which is what same-sex “marriage” is doing.
I think you may have actually skipped the original post, James, since I answered those questions there.
I did reread the original post. I don’t see what the problem is with gay couples filing a joint tax return or passing their inheritance to each other tax free. (In all fairness, many conservative oppose all estate taxes, making this a moot point.)
Nor would ministers be forced to perform same-sex weddings, at least in the United States. The First Amendment is clear that ministers can marry whomever they choose without government officials. (Civil servants are a different issue.) Catholic priests refuse to marry couples all the time. And yes, there are places where ministers refuse to marry interracial couples.
You do realize that civil marriage and holy matrimony are different things, don’t you? Civil marriage is a legal institution and “natural marriage” is a philosophical construct. Holy matrimony and natural marriage are not at issue, only civil marriage. Given these different definitions of marriage, “marriage” by itself has no specific meaning. Words do not have meaning beyond the cultural context in which they are used. That’s basic linguistics.
James, you have essentially said that words have no meaning, but change on a cultural or political whim. Interesting! So, is that why “woman” can now mean “man” if we want it to? You go along with that, right? Reminds me a bit of the Tower of Babel, but hey.
And after today’s SCOTUS decision, does it follow that a priest or minister can deny someone a “Constitutional right”? Nope. But I am not discouraged at all. God trumps America. I posted about it today:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2015/06/rejoice-churchs-beacon-just-got-brighter.html
James, God gives you no choice but to pick a side. I wonder which side you will choose? 🙂
That’s basic linguistics. For example, the English word “football” has no inherent meaning: In the United States, it refers to one sport. In England, it refers to another. In Australia, it refers to a third. The meaning of the word “football” depends on the culture in which it is used.
As for the priest and minister, these are private actors. According to The Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state action, not private action. A private actor cannot deny anyone a “Constitutional Right”.
Congress got around this restriction in the 1960s by tying anti-discrimination laws to the Interstate commerce clause. Any business engaged in interstate commerce could not discriminate, with interstate commerce being interpreted rather broadly. But these are statutory business regulations, not Constitutional rights.
Individual states have their own laws, which may be different. Even so, the First Amendment gives considerable protection to religious ministers. Catholic priests routinely refuse to marry couples who do not meet their criteria to be married in the Church. Ministers can even refuse to marry interracial couples, despite considerable civil rights legislation.
As for choosing sides, what do you think God thinks of committed long-term loving same sex couples? What does God think of someone like Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer? Or James Obergfell and John Arthur? Does God think these partnerships are good or evil?
Justice Scalia said during the oral arguments, “But when a minister performs a marriage he becomes an agent of the State. If this becomes a Constitutional right, I don’t see how you could allow a minister to say, ‘I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry 2 men.’”
Justice Scalia is wrong. Ministers refuse to marry couples every day.
If ministers are agents of the state, then how can a Catholic priest refuse to marry a divorced person while their spouse is still living who is legally eligible to marry?
That’s today, before the ruling that you’re talking about. Marriage is not in the Federal Constitution; it’s been left up to the States until now. Justice Scalia’s point is that once it becomes “a Constitutional right” ministers might not be allowed to refuse same-sex couples. That’s why the Religious Protection Bill that’s now before Congress is so important.
I know, it couldn’t happen here—Right? Ten years ago no one could have even really fathomed same-sex “marriage” as a Constitutional right.
That’s not how the law works.
Then please clarify for Justice Scalia “how the law works”—he still believes in the traditional way it works. Justice Kennedy needs no clarification: for him the law works any way he can possibly imagine.
There’s a reason why Justice Scalia keeps winding up in the minority.
Yes, if you use reason and follow the Constitution as it is written, and obey it, you often will end up in the minority. Particularly today. The Constitution is not any delusional fantasy a Justice can imagine. Read the dissenting Justices scathing opinions: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/06/scotus-justices-on-obergefell-v-hodges/ News Flash: Congress and the people make the laws, the Court interprets the laws. It does not make the laws.
I think the majority reached the correct result, but the majority opinion is poorly reasoned and overbroad. The case should have been decided more along the lines of the Varnum v. Brien, a case from the Iowa Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnum_v._Brien
The Varnum court dismantles the arguments of same sex opponents one by one and concludes there is no rational basis to deny civil marriage to same sex couples.
No, the Varnum court does not “dismantle” natural law. Biologically male and female go together, they’re complimentary, to possibly create children. Three of the Varnum judges were voted out in the next election.
Jesus said, “And the two shall be joined together and become one flesh…And what God has put together let no man put asunder” (Mark 10:8-9). “One flesh” is also written in Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:1. Judeo-Christian morality was an important part of the founding of this country.
So do 2 brothers have a “right” to get married? Or a man and a boy?
The repercussions of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Canada 10 years ago have been that “Today, those with opposing viewpoints are being singled out and removed one-by-one. It shows that there is zero tolerance if one view is forced upon all.” http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/opposing-gay-marriage-is-the-tolerant-thing-to-do/
Sorry, but Genesis and Ephesians are applicable authorities in the U.S. Legal system.
That’s supposed to be a reasoned response to the 5 different points that I made? The Ten Commandments are a foundation of our morality and English Common Law.
James, and yet when you say “football”, we all know what you mean, because it has actual meaning. So, if you start to talk about “footballs” as “chairs”, we have a problem.
Chesterton talked about this idea that every word can be parsed or mean everything and nothing, in his piece on the Suicide of Thought:
Then there is the opposite attack on thought: That urged by Mr. H.G. Wells when he insists that every separate thing is “unique,” and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this skepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech: a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), “All chairs are quite different,” he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them “all chairs”.
What does God think of individual people? I have no idea how he will judge any individual. But how does He judge sodomy? It’s called mortal sin, if done with full consent and knowledge. Very grave sin. So, will you answer? Which side are you on? The Church or the world?
You know what “football” means because you assume I am North American and our cultural context gives this a specific meaning. The meaning comes from the culture, not the word itself.
If you want me to take sides, I have a hard time believing that the relationships I mentioned are in any way displeasing to God. Is your marriage all about intercourse? Same sex relationships are about far more than gay sex.
Actually James, I know what “football” means in European and South American cultures as well. Again, if “football” suddenly began to mean “chair” as well, we would lose the means of communication.
So, I guess you have taken sides? If you think male-on-male sex (now deemed “marriage”) is pleasing to God, then you have definitely taken a side. The Church has said with no equivocation what it always has: Sodomy and homosexual acts are grave sins. You choose to call this “pleasing to God”. You have taken the side of the world, against the Church. So be it. I hope you come back someday, as sin is no light matter. As Pope Francis says, the lie that these “alternative” forms can be marriage/family is a lie from the Evil One. Serious stuff.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”
And yes, I know that marriage (whether you want to include gay “marriage” or not) is about far more than sex. I addressed that in the original post, which I still suspect that you did not read, or you would not have mentioned that point. Please, read the actual post and try to refute or debate something (preferably an actual quote or claim) from the OP.
God bless.
If someone is sitting on a football, then what? (American footballs are hard to sit on, European footballs less so.)
As for marriage being all about sex, you state in the OP: “No, marriage is not “all about sex”, of course, but sex is an intrinsic part of marriage. As mentioned above, a close and intimate relationship without sex is called a friendship, and neither church nor state would have reason to validate or elevate or give special status to that, as wonderful as friendship is.”
It seems you are saying that although you acknowledge that there is more to a marriage than sex, sex is what makes a marriage a marriage. That, to me, is a distinction without a any real difference. If a marriage without sex isn’t a marriage, then sex is the defining element of a marriage. I disagree.
You say society should not privilege friendships. Why not? Society privileges business relationships. And what’s it to you if society does give special status to someone else’s friendship? I don’t believe that makes anyone’s marriage any less special.
It seems like you oppose gay marriage because you believe that God is offended by gay sex and you must oppose gay marriage (and all things gay) in an attempt to protect gay people from having gay sex and provoking God’s anger. Why is your God so angry? You’re like a more polite version of Westboro Baptist Church. That’s not anything I find attractive in the least.
James, if a person is sitting on a football, he is sitting on a football. The football is still not a chair. Now, we can have chairs that “look like” footballs (like for a teen, as a novelty item), but we’d all know that those were chairs, not footballs. Let me make it clearer for you. If chainsaws were suddenly called “toothpicks”, would that make change the nature of the chainsaw or a toothpick? Nope. The nature of a thing remains the same. But it sure would confuse things if we started un-defining things or adding things to the definition that have nothing of the original thing’s essence.
What is the nature of marriage, James? It has nothing inherently to do with sex/consummation/conjugal union, you say. So, what is its nature? (It has to be something that doesn’t include many other kinds of friendships/relationships, or it would merely be those things.) So, what is the nature of marriage as opposed to all other relationships, and why has every society elevated/set apart/promoted marriage? What makes it different?
My God is not angry at all (aside from perfectly righteous anger). Wait, do we worship different gods? That may be true, but I hope not. I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who is a Trinity, the Second Person of Which came down and became Man, Jesus Christ, who founded an Apostolic Church to teach in his name to the end of time. What God do you worship, James?
Meanings of social institutions change over time. Certainly marriage was not the same last week as it was in first century Palestine. Legally, the meaning of marriage has changed significantly in the last 200 years.
Civil marriage is a contract between two persons to form a domestic partnership that has certain rights and duties and is recognized by the state.
The purpose of civil marriage is social stability and legal economy. While a couple could obtain many of the same rights with a series of legal documents, why should they have to spend time and money to do so when an existing legal institution can fit their needs?
Andrew Sullivan’s original 1989 article “Here Comes the Groom” makes a compelling and conservative public policy case for gay marriage. At the time, many gay activists had no interest in marriage. Nevertheless, Sullivan makes the case that in the era of HIV/AIDS (still largely untreatable in 1989), homosexuals need to embrace monogamy and commitment.
The philosophical and metaphysical nature of marriage is irrelevant to the issue of civil marriage, as is whatever God one worships. The Catholic Church does not recognize many civil marriages, nor do they have to. In fact if a Catholic gets a civil marriage from a justice of the peace, then they are not married in the eyes of the Church.
You say you are worshiping the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but you are preaching the Gospel According to Aristotle. Your argument seems to be primarily based on Aristotlean metaphysics about “natures” of things, but I don’t think you fully understand them, or, more importantly, the criticisms of them.
Anyway, do you believe that gay people exist, or do you see them as heterosexuals with “confused” sexual desires? Do you believe that people with deep-seated homosexual desires who wanted to settle down should seek heterosexual marriage instead?
Leila, I’m sure you know this, but there are trolls in those looking to argue no matter what you tell them you could tell them that the sky is blue and they will tell you know that’s really awkward or green. Your article in blog is perfect you’ve explained it wonderfully and I am so glad we have people like you to say the truth. God bless
Yes, she did. Again, it’s good practice to actually read the article before condemning it for what you think it does not contain.
“Of course, the government can give out specific benefits and services to whomever it wishes (that’s within its legitimate authority).”
That is not an answer unless you are ignorant of the political process.
Marriage is pre-political. What is marriage?
That’s a non-answer.
you obviously do not know how to read properly… She’s answered everything that she posted and if you do not understand or can’t comprehend it maybe get someone to read it for you
Thank you for your rather rude and snarky remark. I read the Q&A on disability and marriage and was in total disagreement as I felt the author knew nothing about the world of disability and how it intersects with the world of sexuality. Disabled people, even if they can’t produce children or copulate in the normal mammalian fashion are certainly capable and have right to marriage. Since I have a totally disabled son, I have more knowledge about sexuality and the disabled than most. I wanted a dialogue.
Why do civil authorities annul marriages due to non-consummation?
Civil annulments ( from nolo law) are for:
Fraud or misrepresentation. One spouse concealed or lied about something that was essential to the marriage, like the ability to have children.
No consummation of the marriage. One spouse is physically unable to have sexual intercourse, and the other spouse didn’t know it when they got married.
Incest. The spouses are too closely related by blood so that their marriage is illegal under the laws of the state where they married.
Bigamy. One of the spouses was still legally married to someone else at the time of the alleged marriage.
Underage. One of the spouses is under the age of consent.
Unsound mind. One or both of the spouses was too impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time of the wedding (or didn’t have the mental capacity for some other reason) to understand what was happening and give consent to the marriage.
Force. One of the parties was forced into getting married.
NOTICE: INABILITY TO CONSUME MARRIAGE AND UNKNOWN TO THE OTHER SPOUSE PRIOR TO MARRIAGE, In other words, the inability to consummate marriage was hidden and the other spouse was deceived, The lack of ability to have regular sex was not a reason for the annulment, the issue was FRAUD.
Again in regards to #3 the issue has nothing to do with consummating a marriage it has to to with FRAUD. If both are aware of the issue and consent, there are no grounds for civil annulment. I still believe that you response of a function of abelism and I would appreciate your simply admitting it.
Nope, sorry. If a couple marries and a man is injured before the consummation, the state can and will still annul for non-consummation. I once heard of a woman (from the Old Country, not educated) who married a man who only had anal sex with her (tragic). She had no idea that this was not the way it’s always done (although she hated it) and she was devastated to never get pregnant. Of course this situation could be annulled for non-consummation, since there was never an actual consummation!! Unless you consider anal sex the consummation of a marriage?
Anyway, you are just wrong, Phil. Sorry. Not every case of being unable or (one party) unwilling to consummate is due to fraud. Not by a long shot.
Evidence? Please substantiate …. totally off the mark. If a woman knows a man is a spastic quad and cannot consummate the marriage in the regular way with the intention of breeding an offspring and they agree that their love is sufficient ahead of time, then the marriage is not nullable in the civil sphere. You are so wrong and spreading error. “She had no idea” is somewhat fraudulent on the man’s part so it is open to annulment. You are so ableistic that I am astounded. People who are very disabled and know that one or both cannot engage in breeding to produce a child and agree to a life long marriage are legally married in the civil sense and not an annulable issue. Consult a lawyer! And please do not use bizarre old world examples. You now nothing about the world of profound disability ans stick to Catholic doctrine. This is why I do not attempt to engage you because you always insist on being right even when wrong!
Phil, sure, I’ll consult a lawyer, and why don’t you consult, say, the entire UK? Would that be enough evidence for you that it’s true and real — non-consummation is grounds for annulment. Marriage is not an American institution. It’s universal. Tell me why the entire United Kingdom will annul for non-consummation? And even better, tell me why that same standard does NOT apply in the UK for gay “married” couples? Could it be because they cannot consummate a marriage? I thought gay marriage and hetero marriage were equal? Uh, I guess even the UK knows they can never be equal.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage
When I was growing up, as a teen who lived the Planned Parenthood lifestyle, I knew even back then, as a completely uninformed Catholic, that non-consummation was grounds for civil annulment.
What is it that you refuse ti understand and refuse to address? Ia a spastic quadriplegic is loved and marries a paraplegic in a civil ceremony and that both know and agree that they cannot copulate in the general sense and produce children, They KNOW and AGREE prior to marriage will not be civilly annulled. They can get divorced later for a variety of reasons, not annulled.
You keep avoiding 1. they have prior knowledge and agreement. Of course is one party hides the fact they will not be able to consummate, then a civil annullment is possible. The laws about annulling a marriage vary from state to state,country to country so don’t use the UK as an example. Your contention is ableist, you never address that. The UK has a growing dismal track record od assisting their disabled population.
If you claim that prior knowledge and prior agreement that breeding is not a viable option with two disabled people who marry….prove it. You are wrong and you are an abelist. Your comments are insulting and demeaning to the severely disabled and your attitude to them is that they have “lives not worthy of living”, that they are less than human. Shame!
Dear Phil, it’s interesting that you ask me for evidence, and I give you not only a county or state or nation, but an entire United Kingdom! But still that is not enough for you. Ah, well. Anyway, stating the truth that marriage requires the ability to consummate is not ableist, it’s the truth about the nature of marriage
But can you answer: Why is there a separate standard for gay couples? Why are they not able to annul for non-consummation? Clearly, it’s because they cannot consummate a marriage. Not a single gay couple in the world can.
As for being an “ableist”, I sure hope you are pro-life. Because if you are pro-“choice” and pro-euthanasia, then you are guilty of something very frightful. Talk to me about your positions about killing the disabled or ill or infirm, please. Reassure me that you are working to repeal abortion and euthanasia laws.
As for Josephine marriages, the couple absolutely has to be able to perform the marital act in order to marry. At any point, the marriage is able to be consummated.
Oh, Leila…I rather feel that your response if alike the Grand Inquisition. You weren’t educated by the Dominicans, were you? I was…but I am ready for the rack…so let me address your questions.
We live in the US, so the definitions of anything in the UK are meaningless as the topic was about the SCOTUS decision in the US and civil annulment is slightly different in each state, and in each country. You can not apply UK models to the world.
I am generally opposed to abortion. I am vehemently, and I have extensively blogged about the unethical nature of selective abortion. I reject the notion of abortion based upon the genetic testing which may indicate a fetus is disabled, I reject sex selective abortion, My rejectopn is prinarily based upon the fact I take 21/7 care of my non-verbal spastic quad son who has taught me more about unconditional love than any Holy Book or religion could. I reject abortion based upon the failure to use contraception or the failure of that contraception. I do not reject abortion in the cases when a young child/woman is forcibly inseminated. I believe termination os pregnancy is ethical is a father gets his 11 year old daughter pregnant. I feel that a termination is ethical in the case of the 9 year old Yazidi girls who was raped by 10 plus ISIS. Daesh jihadists. Please read this article:
http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-news-9-year-old-girl-pregnant-after-being-raped-islamic-state-group-militants-1877291
No person with a heart would oppose this pregnancy termination when the death of a mother is a certainty.
As for copulation and breeding being necessary for a valid marriage, you are wrong. I referred to a Josephite marriage (somewhat controversial) with a martial contract and a promise to remain virgins….quite a saintly position. By the way it’s Josephite, not Josephine ( you’re fingers must be tired)..It’s actually modeled after the Mary and Joseph sexless union in tthe Bible, unless you ascribe to the Biblical reference and controversy that Jesus had brothers who are named. Here is an article about the little know and rare Josephite marriage.
http://catholic.nowealthbutlife.com/valid-consummated/
Anyway, I hope I answered your questions and I still believe your position is ableist on Question #3 as would many many disability advocates that I interact with daily.. I am now ready for the rack. Blessing to you….
Sorry, what rack? Am I that nasty and violent? Wow, and here I thought we were having a respectful discussion.
First, “Josephine” was likely the result of autocorrect. I will go back and edit. Yes, I know about Josephite marriages, and I have written about Joseph and Mary and their marriage. But they both had the capability to confect a marriage (one-flesh union), even if they refrained from consummation.
I am glad to hear you are “generally opposed” to abortion. But what does that mean, practically? Do you lobby and work to end 99.9 percent of abortions in this land? Do you give money to pro-life causes and volunteer for crisis pregnancy centers? Do you vote only for pro-life candidates, lest more innocent blood (by the millions) be shed? And truth be told, abortion is most definitely NOT a cure for any life-threatening pregnancy. Delivery sometimes would be, but not the direct termination of a child. Thousands in the medical field have attested to this, publicly. There is never a medical reason to abort a child to save the life of a mother. If you want to have that discussion, please take it to my email ([email protected]), and I’ll give you all the info you need.
The mantra of the pro-life movement in the Catholic Church is “love them both”. We never, ever pit a child and mother against each other. Never. We love them both and treat both with equal dignity. I hope you can agree that that is always the right choice, and anyone with a heart would agree.
As for your objection to my reference to the UK…. why? I’ve always argued that marriage is pre-political, universal, and not confined to one state or culture. The UK is our foremother in law and history, and I can use her if I please. It’s the first thing I saw when I googled for info, and it’s a perfect example for you and others to see the universality of consummation as a requisite for valid marriage (although strangely…. the standard is not the same for homosexuals, and no one wants to answer why….).
I read this tonight and I think it speaks to the issue:
Men and women married and formed families for millennia before the modern state, beginning in the 16th century, claimed for itself the primary authority over the regulation of marriage. Indeed, the priority of marriage over the state has long been one of the chief arguments that current proponents of same-sex marriage have used to claim that the state should redefine marriage to reflect evolving cultural attitudes—while not recognizing the inherent illogic in their arguments: If marriage precedes the state, the state cannot legitimately redefine marriage, any more than it can declare that up is down, left is right, the sky is green, or grass is blue.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/fl/Can-Catholics-Support-Same-Sex-Marriage.htm?
But I am heartened tonight to hear that you are vocally and actively pro-life! Some good news. (You didn’t mention euthanasia, I don’t think?)
Interesting that you don’t even know that the UK is made up of four countries with different laws governing marriage and annulments. So you used England as an example, a country who’s freely elected Conservative government legalised equal marriage, an Act legitimised by it’s Anglican queen and Head of the State church.
Perhaps though you’d rather follow Ireland’s example and have it confirmed by popular vote by a resounding majority of catholics?
Personally I don’t understand why you’re referencing an archaic legal tradition in a country which does not have a written constitution. It merely reminds readers of the days when women were brood mares, useless as wives unless they spawned the next generation of landed gentry.
What are you talking about? Sorry, I am not understanding your point. I linked to the UK’s criteria for annulling a civil marriage. Did you not look at it? Maybe check it out and then get back to me and my question about why there are two standards, one for straight couples and one for homosexual couples.
I’m surprised Phil has even bothered to rebut this for so long. At the end of the day your opinion on this topic is irrelevant. Times change and more governments are coming to the realisation that allowing same-sex couples to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual couples hurts absolutely NOBODY. The only change is that loving gay couples can be legally recognised as such and can celebrate that love with their families and loved ones. How that can ever be seen as a bad thing is beyond me.
Well, Ben, marriage is not about the state “celebrating” anybody’s “love”. What on earth?
And if you don’t think gay marriage harms anyone, you haven’t been watching or listening. Here’s the beginning of your reading list:
http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/aggregated-content/a-warning-from-canada-same-sex-marriage-erodes-fundamental-rights-5794749092986880
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14822/
There’s so much more, but it’s very, very late here. Goodnight!
You do realise that there is absolutely nothing stopping gay couples from becoming parents even without gay marriage being legalised? They always have and will continue to do so through means such as surrogacy and adoption. So this argument is redundant.
You may post articles about individual cases, there are always going to be individuals who aren’t happy with their parentage. The point being that it is up to the individual to ensure they are a good parent, whether they are gay, straight, married, de facto, single or otherwise.
You are right that gay people already raise children (and like their hetero counterparts, they sometimes use human reproductive trafficking to produce a child). But the “right” to “marriage” comes with the next step, a legal “right” to children. Forcing anyone and everyone who has an objection to adopting to a gay couple for example, to acquiesce to the state. Like the Catholic foster care charities that had to shut down rather than violate their principles. Like the IVF doctors who were sued for not artificially inseminating lesbians, even though it was against the doctors’ religious beliefs to do so. Those were violations of the exercise of religion forced by the laws of those individual states. Now, it will be nationwide. Heck I think loopy California even has tried to pass a law (or has) to give gay couples covered INFERTILITY TREATMENTS! Can you imagine?? Nature herself sees to it that all gay couples are infertile together, but the state now considers that very natural order a DISORDER and expects the insurance companies and taxpayers to pay for it! We are definitely Alice down the rabbit hole. Lord, have mercy.
As to your last sentence, my goodness, this is where we diverge. Marriage and parenting was never about the selfish adults, it was for the protection and rights of the children. One can be a very “good parent” and yet to have somehow acquired a child with the intent that the child would be purposely deprived of either a mother or father; and, well, no adult has the right to do that. Every child has a natural right to be born of his mother and father. When that does not happen, it’s because of a sin or misfortune, but it should never, ever be done as a choice to be celebrated. We are so misguided. So selfish. Part of being a genuinely good parent is not depriving a child of his or her most fundamental rights, purposely, from the get-go.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/supreme-court-upholds-canadas-hate-speech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader
The American Constitution prevents such things from happening here, serious. There is already legal precedent here, and hate speech must also be directly threatening in order to be exempted from protection.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/
Are you familiar with Westboro Baptist Church? They won, they have the legal right to say all the terrible things they have said at people funerals, ect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
You might find all the anti-Catholic things they said quite repulsive, but they are also protected. It helps to get our facts straight on the law 🙂
Excellent response Phil shows lou read it!!!
So I guess Phil’s complaint is that modern society has granted too many protections for traditional marriage. A bit of jealousy I guess.
Just looking for equal protection under the Constitution and I guess gay people have received many protections now! I am jealous of no one, maybe excepting Donald Trump’s hair.
Phil, in as much as we appreciate your diligence to go to this website and single-handedly challenge everyone here, I’m afraid that your arguments will go on forever, only changing in discussion (much like how you described marriage’s nature to be evolving, which I would also have to disagree with you). Perhaps it’s the manner in which you approach truths to be fallible and changing over time. And by truths I mean social truths that are otherwise seen by the Catholic Church as infallible as ascribed by our founding fathers which are continuously re-established by the Vatican Council should they see it fit to be so given the change in times but are NEVER changed, just as marriage in our context will continue to follow till the end of time.
But then again, I don’t think neither of us will back down from an argument regarding this issue (and if I may also speak for the rest of the Catholic readers here :), I suggest you may share your views elsewhere. Thank you though for the effort and desire in wanting to know our views and attempting to contextualize it with your own!
Thank you for inviting me to go elsewhere, but why should I dialogue with “KUMBAYA” group. I am here to challenge a belief system which discriminates against marginalized people and I won’t be going elsewhere. Do you only want to interact with people who agree with you? That what Church is for. A public forum is to encourage dialogue.
I don’t see the Church as an institution discriminates, The Church merely resounds the teachings of Her Founder. Perhaps there would be Catholics who would disagree with you vehemently and disrespectfully, but that person/s are not wholly the Church.
Regarding your dialogue, I would have to agree with you on that. I apologize, you’re open to share your sentiments given that indeed this is a public forum. And yes, I do usually interact with people I agree with, it’s rather an appealing experience then, say talking to someone you completely disagree with.
Lastly, not exactly, the Church wasn’t established purely so you have a people agree with you on every minute detail. Obviously, there’s a lot of things I disagree on with fellow Catholics such as which basketball teams I root for or what movie I enjoyed or how I found a literary work, and other things.
Through civil unions none of those rights would have been denied, or not at least as the issue was being framed a few years ago. We all know what they want which is full acceptance of their sinful lifestyle, and that just isn’t going to happen. When you go against nature when it comes to having children, sexual relations, as well as in the process denying children the right to a mother and a father, you cannot be surprised that thinking people will say, “Hey, live as you please, but don’t shove your ODD take on humanity and sexuality down MY throat!”
Gary, bigotry and discrimination and condemnation under the guise of any particular sect of religion is still bigotry, discrimination and condemnation. We all have to face our God…let conscience be the meeting point, The world is not flat; the earth does revovle around the sun.
Phil, in this day and age, in order to get what one wants, they play the victim, bigotry, discrimination, etc card. It is none of those things to believe God got it right the first time when He created us man and woman, and gave them and them alone the biology to enjoy natural joy and bliss in sexual relationships. In this and in other common sense issues homosexuality is in direct conflict with God’s perfect and natural design and, so again, I DO feel God got it right and I’m not bigoted for believing that and neither is anyone else.
Definition:
big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
“the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry”
Please apply definition and and say again you are not thinking in a bigoted fashion.
This definition perfectly describes the gay community.
The gay community is not attempting to deny the equal protection provided by the 14th amendment and is not intolerant of heterosexuality. Try again…
Right. That’s why they got the Atlanta Fire Chief fired. And they’re so tolerant they go after Christian businesses who refuse to participate in what God calls sin. Tryagain
What he did was tantamount to a police chief passing out the Koran to his officers or a public high school principal passing out the Bible to his students. You cannot use a captive audience or use subordinates to be exposed to your religious beliefs. Their job is to uphold the Constitution not subvert it. The firehouse is a public governmental workplace not a Church. He should without a question be fired….Please clarify your last sentence…”what the Catholic God calls sin.”
Naturally of course you can’t respond to the specifics of what I said, instead using a dictionary to define bigotry. Tell me where I was wrong ONE TIME in the post that preceded your bigotry definition post.
Sure I can, your comments about the suspension of the Atlanta Chief and the appropriateness of his passing out his salacious book to his governmental employees. Here;s what the Firemen’s Association said:
“The Atlanta Professional Firefighters union said in a statement that it was “disappointed to discover how the Fire Chief chose to represent Atlanta Fire Rescue in his book,” adding, “We applaud Mayor Reed for his quick decisive decision and look forward to working with the Mayor’s [office] of LBGT services to develop strategies to ensure equal treatment and rights for all.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/26/atlanta-fire-chief-suspended-after-distributing-his-religious-book-to-employees/