DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2478--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: bradley Date: July 7, 2015, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
^All true. But people love to ask christians "why" something
is wrong, as if we are the pillar of wisdom and virtue, looking
to find fault with our answers. Scripture says always be ready
to answer others about our faith, and here is the focal
point.... it is "faith", things believed in without concrete
proof. Our proof is either the leading of the Holy Spirit
(which in my mind should be prominent), or scripture (which is
still good but, the letter of the law...). Sometimes, truly
the BEST answer is, it is our faith! And our lifestyle must be
such that our words hold more weight, but sadly many christians
only want to do the barest minimum to serve God, and their
lifestyle does not give weight to their words. Logic and
knowledge which most people use, can only serve us so well,
since logic patterns and accepted true knowledge change over
time and do not hold the timeless truth that God can provide us.
#Post#: 2625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: CatholicCrusader Date: July 21, 2015, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=285.msg2410#msg2410
date=1435518088]
Not sure if this is a secular or religious discussion. Just
wonder if we should, or if we dare, discuss the legalization of
gay marriage.[/quote]
Yes, we should, and its actually both secular and religious.
Christians have made a gross error in the news on this matter by
making it a religious thing. When that happens, non-Christians
only need say that they are not Christian, and - poof - the
whole argument goes down the toilet.
What should have been focused on all along are Legal Precedent
and Medical Disorder.
I have heard people say regarding abortion that it has been the
law of the land for so long now that you just can't get rid of
it. Really? A whole 60 years? And yet marriage between a man and
a woman has been the law forever, and they feel free to overturn
that.
"Stare decisis" is a legal principle by which judges are obliged
to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The
words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin
maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions
and not disturb the undisturbed." In a legal context, this is
understood to mean that courts should generally abide by
precedent and not disturb settled matters
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
As for it being a mental disorder: It is, despite what the APA
says. (I could go on at length about that.)
Those are the points that should have been hammered home in
public discussions.
#Post#: 2627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Piper Date: July 21, 2015, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]The legal precedent makes good sense.
I'm not sure about the mental disorder, at least not in every
instance. It seems that, perhaps, physical anomalies may exist
in certain people--gene variation.
I don't know much about it, but most things are hard to label.
People probably turn to homosexuality for a variety of
reasons.[/font]
#Post#: 2644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 23, 2015, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=285.msg2625#msg2625
date=1437478147]
Yes, we should, and its actually both secular and
religious.[/quote]
I don't agree with the statement that marriage involves one man
and one woman. I think it involves a man and a woman who agree
to try to have children. Marriage is about the possibility of
having and rearing children -- and the government's business in
it should be the welfare of children.
There is an Orthodox priest in Chicago who says he'll continue
to perform "religious" marriages in his church but he won't act
as a servant of the state and sign the marriage licenses the
state issues. If they want to be married civilly, they can go
visit a justice of the peace. From the Chicago Tribune
HTML http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-orthodox-priest-refuses-marriage-licenses-met-20150702-story.html#page=1:
"The strange situation in the United States is clergymen not
only act in the name of the church, they also act in the name of
the state," said Reardon, the pastor of All Saints Antiochian
Orthodox Church in Chicago's Irving Park community. "The
clergymen wear two hats. I'm making a political statement in
this sense: I'm accusing the state of usurping the role of God.
What I'm saying is, 'I don't agree with you and I'm going to
change the way I do things. I will not act in your name. … I
will not render unto Caesar that which belongs to God.'"
The unusual protest has inspired other Christian clergy —
Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant — to consider following
his lead, a shift Reardon hopes will lead the nation to a
different model of marriage, one that no longer deputizes clergy
to sign marriage licenses and, in his opinion, effectively
uphold the state's definition of marriage.
[quote]Christians have made a gross error in the news on this
matter by making it a religious thing. When that happens,
non-Christians only need say that they are not Christian, and -
poof - the whole argument goes down the toilet.
What should have been focused on all along are Legal Precedent
and Medical Disorder.[/quote]
It goes back to the theory of "licenses" to me.
The only legitimate business I can see for the state to be in
the marriage business to issue licenses is for the protection of
children. Marriage shouldn't be about romance or getting tax
breaks. Marriage should be about two adults promising to be
together should they have children. Now if parents do stay
together having having children, the benefits to society are
huge. And that justifies the state regulating it and issuing
licenses. It also justifies giving married people tax breaks
and other benefits. The savings in prisons alone would
justify it since our prisons are filled with people from single
parent homes.
It should also be about contracts; and at the moment, the word
"contract" no longer applies realistically to marriage in a
secular sense. Any contract has punishments for what happens
if one party fails to meet his obligations. Years ago, the
states started degrading the contractual aspect of marriage by
introducing no-fault divorce. The excuse given was all the
divorce cases were clogging up the court system. So marriage
became the only "contract" is not really a contract anymore.
Honestly I think I like the system they have in Egypt. There's
all kinds of religions there; and people can marriage according
to the provisions of their religion. When they get married,
their clergy give them a paper which they take to the government
who then recognizes it. The same goes for divorce.
The Coptic Church was having problems with divorce since it's
almost impossible for a Copt to get divorced, so the government
says they're still married too. So there were Copts who wanted
to get divorced as easily as Muslims and Episcopalians and maybe
Jews. The government said it wasn't their business, the last I
heard.
I think we need something like that here in the US. While I am
more liberal than the Catholic Church about divorce, I still
believe it's an outrage that Catholics can get married and then
one of them can file for divorce and get it. If people promise
to stay married all their lives and mean it, I see that as a
contract that no government should be able to set aside.
I think whatever church you marry in should have some clout in
the matter and not the government. It would not clog our courts
if we said marriage and divorce were a matter for churches. In
most states, Catholics already cannot enter marriages of the
type they believe in since the government says divorce should be
easy.
Here in Pennsylvania, most divorces are no-fault. It is still
possible, in theory, to sue for breach of contract; but a lawyer
told me most judges wouldn't want to deal with them, and they'd
turn you down if you wanted to prove your spouse had committed
adultery or something. Yet unarguably, we know easy divorces
means people were entering into marriage "lightly" despite
what they say in their vows.
Marriage has been broken for years. Marriage as a legal
institution means next to nothing except having that piece of
paper means certain benefits that come with it. It's
estimated that 40% to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. That
leads to child support problems, second marriages with
conflicts, and single parents struggling to get by.
Religious marriage may come to mean more -- if we stop confusing
it with the secular definition. The secular version is not
that important to me. It's almost irrelevant.
#Post#: 2645--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: CatholicCrusader Date: July 23, 2015, 1:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=285.msg2644#msg2644
date=1437672474]
I don't agree with the statement that marriage involves one man
and one woman. I think it involves a man and a woman who agree
to try to have children..............[/quote]
So old people can never get married, for companionship and love?
I don't think that's correct. Not to mention the fact that's an
entirely different subject.
#Post#: 2647--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Piper Date: July 23, 2015, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]I think marriage is known as a covenant among
Catholics, which is an exchange of people, as opposed to a
contract, which exchanges goods.
From Dr. Scott Hahn:[/font]
[quote][font=times new roman]First, contracts involve promises,
covenants involve oaths.
When you enter into a contract, say, to buy a house, you make a
promise to the seller, along the lines of: "I give you my word
that I will pay you this amount of money for your house." The
seller , in turn, makes a promise: "I give you my word that if
you pay me the sum we have agreed upon, I will turn over to you
the deed to my house."
The "word" you each pledge to the other is your name. And you
each sign your name on the contract as a "sign" that you'll
uphold your end of the bargain or keep your promise.
Covenants are much different. In a covenant, you elevate and
upgrade your promise. Not only do you give your word, you also
swear an oath, invoke a higher authority - you call God in as
your witness.[/font][/quote]
[quote][font=times new roman]Incidentally, did you know that the
word "oath" translates the Latin word sacramentum,where we get
our word "sacrament"? In a future course, we'll look at
sacraments as oaths. But for now, just keep in mind, as we
mentioned earlier, that the notion of covenant and oaths is
crucial to understanding the sacraments and our relationship
with God.
The second big difference between contracts and covenants is
this: contracts exchange property, covenants exchange persons.
Contracts involve you promising to pay a certain sum of money
and the person you're contracting with to deliver you a certain
product or service.
Covenants are much different. When people enter into a covenant,
they say: "I am yours and you are mine." In a contract, you
exchange something you have - a skill, a piece of property,
money. In a covenant you exchange your very being, you give your
very self to another person.
Marriage is a covenant. The man swears an oath to the woman,
"I'm yours forever." The woman swears an oath to the man, "I'm
yours forever." [/font][/quote]
[font=trebuchet ms]I'm not sure how the Church handles the
breaking of the covenant of marriage. I'm sure it's highly
frowned upon.
Most Protestant marriages, too, involve saying, "Till death do
us part." And they also invoke God. So, a Protestant divorce
is really a breached covenant, as well.
But, we all know 'situations' arise.
I do like that the Catholic Church has pre-marriage counseling
to force couples to consider many angles they might overlook. I
believe that's mandatory.
I wonder what kind of vows would be made at a same-sex wedding.
I wonder how the Catholic Church, or any church, feels about
members even attending such a wedding.
[/font]
#Post#: 2648--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 23, 2015, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=285.msg2645#msg2645
date=1437675021]
So old people can never get married, for companionship and love?
I don't think that's correct. Not to mention the fact that's an
entirely different subject.
[/quote]That kind of thinking is the kind gays use. See the
problem? From the Catechism
HTML http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM#-2ED:
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love
naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from
outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses,
but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its
fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of
life" teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open
'per se' to the transmission of life." "This particular
doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is
based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which
man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive
significance and the procreative significance which are both
inherent to the marriage act."
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power
and fatherhood of God. "Married couples should regard it as
their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their
children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating
with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense,
its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of
human and Christian responsibility."
I could interpret that to justify an older woman past
childbearing age remarrying if her husband dies and she has
children to support. Similarly, I can justify a barren woman
woman marrying a widower with children as Michal did after David
divorced her. There is more to the welfare of children than
making them, so I think we can justify it if someone remarries
for the benefit of children.
In my way of thinking, two elderly people who knew they wouldn't
be having children could "hook up" civilly if they wanted, and I
wouldn't count that as adulterous; but it's not a full fledged
marriage that needs a blessing in a church. Similarly, there
are benefits to gays "hooking up" civilly if they agree to
responsible for each other financially. They would need fewer
government services; and perhaps it would reduce STDs?
#Post#: 2649--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: CatholicCrusader Date: July 23, 2015, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry - ALL married couples are asked to be open to life, if it
comes, or if it doesn't come, either way naturally, and not
artificially alter God's life-giving plan. I can promise you
with 110% certainty that the Catechism and the Church in no way
is against older people getting married.
#Post#: 2650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 23, 2015, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=285.msg2647#msg2647
date=1437683060]
[font=trebuchet ms]I think marriage is known as a covenant among
Catholics, which is an exchange of people, as opposed to a
contract, which exchanges goods.
From Dr. Scott Hahn:[/font]
[font=trebuchet ms]I'm not sure how the Church handles the
breaking of the covenant of marriage. I'm sure it's highly
frowned upon.
Most Protestant marriages, too, involve saying, "Till death do
us part." And they also invoke God. So, a Protestant divorce
is really a breached covenant, as well.
But, we all know 'situations' arise.
I do like that the Catholic Church has pre-marriage counseling
to force couples to consider many angles they might overlook. I
believe that's mandatory.
I wonder what kind of vows would be made at a same-sex wedding.
I wonder how the Catholic Church, or any church, feels about
members even attending such a wedding.
[/font]
[/quote]I believe this is a recent innovation. Catholics did
not start talking about marriage being a covenant until quite
recently. The current Catechism calls it that; but when I
checked, the Baltimore Catechism did not. So far as I can
determine the idea of marriage as a covenant originated in
France in 1947 by someone named Henri Mazeaud. The idea got
made into law in Louisiana, and I'm not sure when the Catholic
Church altered the language in the Catechism.
#Post#: 2651--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: CatholicCrusader Date: July 23, 2015, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=285.msg2647#msg2647
date=1437683060]
. . . . 'm not sure how the Church handles the breaking of the
covenant of marriage. I'm sure it's highly frowned upon. . . .
[/quote]
Its a non-sequitur. In other words, it cannot happen. An
authentic marriage is never broken in the eyes of the Church,
regardless of whether or not uninformed Catholics think they are
divorced. You cannot frown upon something that does not exist.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page