What "supporting traditional families" really means.

[The Voice of Reason]

I am sooooo glad that have not isolated yourself from me.:sarcastic

You have a good point. I have to admit that I find your screed both redundant and pointless, and yet, I somehow can't tear myself away from watching the trainwreck.

The RCC is one of the faithful Churches that stay strong in defense of the sanctity of marriage and life.

Thanks. I was trying to understand what doctrine you were referring to, or if you meant the sum of the churches positions on all subjects.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The principle is the same

Go back to school and do some studying on the topic. I see no point in discussing what the majority can or can't do when you think the Athenian Democracy was the same as the Roman Republic. :sarcastic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Generally speaking, I am in agreement with the mood of this thread. Now I do think that some of the things advocated in the gay rights movement are, in my understanding, incorrect- though I don't think that homosexuals themselves are the primary sources of these errors (e.g. much has happened in our culture to prepare the way for means of artificial family construction that I find immoral or questionable).

Depending on how you define "artificial family construction", I think that the ship probably sailed on that issue when divorce became common.

Also, some things regarding what is classified as hate speech and other excessive governing of language (Yet, this pales in comparison to the way gay people have been treated and often still are). Nor do I understand it to be possible for there to be a such thing as homosexual marriage in the Catholic, sacramental meaning of the word.

But even in a Catholic context, marriage does not necessarily imply anything sacramental. Take me: I was married in a Catholic church, but the priest made it clear that the marriage would not be a sacrament for me as it would be for my wife because I was unbaptized.

Also, would the Catholic Church consider homosexual marriage to carry no weight if, say, a Catholic couple went to be married in the Church and one of the prospective spouses disclosed that he or she had previously been married to a member of the same sex?

But I don't accept the rhetoric of my religious leaders that same-sex legally sanctioned unions are somehow tearing apart the fabric of our society- or are destined to do so. I think very different forces are responsible for that, for which we are all responsible in some way.

Thanks for that, BTW.

That being said, I have always maintained that what we really need is not some rapid focus on the nuclear family- which in some ways might be part of the problem of an excessively atomized society- but a call towards constructing larger families (through blood relations or friendships) and more involved, proximate and intimate relationships which can provide the mother and father with a network of support that is not a day-care center, not a school, not an institution.

I fully support adoption by same-sex couples for the very reason that it rescues children from living in destabilized environments or lives marked by institutionalization and bureaucracy.

I understand all of the above to be very "pro-family".

As do I.

Craiky! Here we go again the goal post is on the move. What possible diference can this make to the discussion subject at hand?

Just the matter of consistency.

I know of the bickering that protestant and Catholic have had for centuries, this of course include the concept of what a traditional family is and the Catholic to their credit have not changed Christianity’s tenets in order to increase their membership, they and the majority of Christian are standing firm in the defense of the sanctity of marriage and life.

Yes, but the sanctity of marriage within those denominations depends greatly on the views of the denomination in question. For example, the Catholic Church generally has major problems with Catholics getting married outside the Catholic Church.

Now there are other minorities of smaller newly founded churches that have even ordained gay priest and founded gay’s churches, the uniting church is an example and has given them some success, the question is. What have they succeeded in? Another is universalism that joined forces with Unitarians and also achieves some growth in membership. But the mission of the Church is to guide people to repentance and salvation, telling people that it does mater what you do, what kind of life you live isn’t going to make it happen. So really this last effort of your is pretty lame.

Meh. I don't think so. I think it underscores the inconsistency of your position. Maybe an example would help: where I live in Canada, the province was effectively run by the Orange Order until the early part of the 20th Century. During this time, it was virtually impossible for a Catholic to hold public office. I don't know the political history of Australia that well, but the fact that we share a political and cultural tradition says to me that something similar may have been the case there as well.

Was it right for people to do this? It was generally supported by the Protestant majority. If, as you claim, majority rules is the be-all and end-all of political justification, then this justifies all sorts of things from banning same-sex marriage to denial of political representation for Catholics.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Depending on how you define "artificial family construction", I think that the ship probably sailed on that issue when divorce became common.

By this I mean the production of children outside of a marital context- a single woman impregnating herself through a sperm donor, a gay couple becoming pregnant through insemination- models of family which deliberately set out to exclude either a mother or a father from primary participation in the child's life and treat one parent as a "donor".

But even in a Catholic context, marriage does not necessarily imply anything sacramental. Take me: I was married in a Catholic church, but the priest made it clear that the marriage would not be a sacrament for me as it would be for my wife because I was unbaptized.

Also, would the Catholic Church consider homosexual marriage to carry no weight if, say, a Catholic couple went to be married in the Church and one of the prospective spouses disclosed that he or she had previously been married to a member of the same sex?

That is correct, a homosexual marriage would carry no weight because, in the Catholic meaning of the term, homosexual marriage is not possible.

I think the Catholic problem is that it rightfully sees marriage as historically serving as a fundamental institution for society- the building block of society as it were. Marriage for a great portion of human history has not been principally about love, but about social utility [ and necessarily so for that time!]. This is where the difficulty is introduced.

Catholic doctrine and its current evaluation of the natural law continues to see marriage as more than an individual affair- it necessarily involves the interests of the whole society, and so as much as it is geared towards the union of two persons in love, it is also geared towards the raising and formation of the future generation. Insofar as this is true, I will always maintain a heterosexual priority in my theological/ philosophical understanding. This is because heterosexual unions are the fountain of biological life and the primary sphere for the development and nurture of children. I think it is quite reasonable to understand homosexual unions to play here a kind of supporting role in the duty towards the formation and rearing of future generations. Though this does imply a kind of subordination or a kind of technical inequality that people really oppose, and which they try to correct trough technological means (such as artificially creating the conditions of heterosexual fecundity through insemination). Though I do not think it has to mean that there is less dignity involved in one union than another- but certainly a difference in their place or role as integral to the structure of society. Strictly speaking, what I am saying is that we need to find a place in the "body of society" for homosexual unions. It could not, in my understanding, be functionally equal to heterosexual unions- my toes are not equal to my fingers, but chop them off and I lose my balance.

Catholic teaching attempts to maintain the broader societal aspect of marriage, while at the same time [today] trying to develop a [very modern] theology of love that means marriage is not merely a pragmatic affair, not simply done with a view to the whole, but also something personally authenticating and enriching and freely done.

In principle, I agree with this, but I see it as really a first attempt among, perhaps, several as the meaning and utility [and deficiency] of marriage in a modern society becomes clearer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By this I mean the production of children outside of a marital context- a single woman impregnating herself through a sperm donor, a gay couple becoming pregnant through insemination- models of family which deliberately set out to exclude either a mother or a father from primary participation in the child's life and treat one parent as a "donor".

Well, a single woman impregnating herself through a sperm donor sure isn't a result of same-sex marriage.

However, I wonder if there wasn't at least a bit of the mentality that you talk about present in earlier models of family: for example, though most of human history when one of the leading causes of death in women was childbirth. I think that in that context, the act of having a child could be seen as an act that could potentially remove the mother from the family.

That is correct, a homosexual marriage would carry no weight because, in the Catholic meaning of the term, homosexual marriage is not possible.

Hmm. So you don't think the fact that a prospective wife or husband has been married in a previous same-sex marriage (distinct from the issues of sexual orientation that it would imply) would factor into whether they're eligible to be married in the Church? I find that odd.

Catholic doctrine and its current evaluation of the natural law continues to see marriage as more than an individual affair- it necessarily involves the interests of the whole society, and so as much as it is geared towards the union of two persons in love, it is also geared towards the raising and formation of the future generation. Insofar as this is true, I will always maintain a heterosexual priority in my theological/ philosophical understanding.

But hang on: why "always"? I mean, you pointed out the importance of society in the question of marriage. Well, I may not be part of the Church, but I am part of society, and I ardently support the idea of same-sex marriage. Does my opinion and the similar opinion of others not matter?

Strictly speaking, what I am saying is that we need to find a place in the "body of society" for homosexual unions. It could not, in my understanding, be functionally equal to heterosexual unions- my toes are not equal to my fingers, but chop them off and I lose my balance.

Functionally, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are what they are, regardless of the law. The issue isn't functional equality, it's legal equality... and I think that your toes are just as justified as your fingers in being protected legally from being chopped off.

 

[Smoke]

By this I mean the production of children outside of a marital context- a single woman impregnating herself through a sperm donor, a gay couple becoming pregnant through insemination- models of family which deliberately set out to exclude either a mother or a father from primary participation in the child's life and treat one parent as a "donor".

What about married heterosexual couples who use donor sperm or eggs? What about married heterosexual couples who adopt? What about married heterosexuals who adopt their stepchildren? In each case, the children have been "produced" outside the marriage of the people who will bring them up. If this is an error, then -- as you say -- it's not gay people who are the main ones committing it. So why do you think the Church concentrates its efforts on demonizing gay people and working to limit our civil rights?

Personally, I think this is an example, not of moral steadfastness, but of moral cowardice. The Vatican knows very well that it can't enforce its will on the heterosexual majority, but it thinks it can enforce its will on the gay minority. The obvious hypocrisy, and the institutional bullying, says a lot about the moral qualities of the Church's leaders.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Well, a single woman impregnating herself through a sperm donor sure isn't a result of same-sex marriage.

No, I agree.

Hmm. So you don't think the fact that a prospective wife or husband has been married in a previous same-sex marriage (distinct from the issues of sexual orientation that it would imply) would factor into whether they're eligible to be married in the Church? I find that odd.

I don't find that odd. Homosexual unions are not capable of being a sacrament. [ a sacrament signifies materially what it does ]

Functionally, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are what they are, regardless of the law. The issue isn't functional equality, it's legal equality... and I think that your toes are just as justified as your fingers in being protected legally from being chopped off.

Well,this is why I am not opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage as a civil institution.

What about married heterosexual couples who use donor sperm or eggs? What about married heterosexual couples who adopt? What about married heterosexuals who adopt their stepchildren? In each case, the children have been "produced" outside the marriage of the people who will bring them up. If this is an error, then -- as you say -- it's not gay people who are the main ones committing it. So why do you think the Church concentrates its efforts on demonizing gay people and working to limit our civil rights?

I am not against adoption, I am completely for it! My principal problem with artificial means of impregnation is those methods which deliberately exclude the mother and father from the start, and not because that particular parent has proven inept. I don't think the selling of embryos and sperm is a good thing, nor the entire idea of the sperm bank. This is why I don't believe single parenthood insemination or same-sex couple insemination is a moral option. I think adoption, however, is quite noble and a very good thing.

 

[DallasApple]

Interesting how so many people will jump up and down, hoot and holler, scream bloody murder, petition the government to enact laws, to protect the "sanctity" of marriage from same sex couples, but say hardly a word one about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage from divorce....

Sounds like a big bunch of sanctimonious BS to me.

Because they want the legal option to divorce.And rightfully so.I would never tell a person they had no legal outlet to divorce.

Protect the "sannctity" by doing your very best at marriage.

Love

Dallas

 

[McBell]

Because they want the legal option to divorce.And rightfully so.I would never tell a person they had no legal outlet to divorce.

Protect the "sannctity" by doing your very best at marriage.

Love

Dallas

Unless you are gay and trying to marry a member of the same sex.....


For all their talk of "sanctity" they sure do an awful lot of cherry picking with it.

 

[Autodidact]

By this I mean the production of children outside of a marital context- a single woman impregnating herself through a sperm donor, a gay couple becoming pregnant through insemination- models of family which deliberately set out to exclude either a mother or a father from primary participation in the child's life and treat one parent as a "donor".

Well that's putting the focus where it doesn't belong. I mean, does every heterosexual conception deliberately set out to exclude two mothers or two fathers? Does it make any difference what sex the two parents are? Oh wait, it turns out it doesn't.

I think the Catholic problem is that it rightfully sees marriage as historically serving as a fundamental institution for society- the building block of society as it were. Marriage for a great portion of human history has not been principally about love, but about social utility [ and necessarily so for that time!]. This is where the difficulty is introduced.

I don't think that is the problem, because Gay marriage serves that function. I think the Catholic problem is prejudice.

Catholic doctrine and its current evaluation of the natural law continues to see marriage as more than an individual affair- it necessarily involves the interests of the whole society, and so as much as it is geared towards the union of two persons in love, it is also geared towards the raising and formation of the future generation. Insofar as this is true, I will always maintain a heterosexual priority in my theological/ philosophical understanding. This is because heterosexual unions are the fountain of biological life and the primary sphere for the development and nurture of children. I think it is quite reasonable to understand homosexual unions to play here a kind of supporting role in the duty towards the formation and rearing of future generations. Though this does imply a kind of subordination or a kind of technical inequality that people really oppose, and which they try to correct trough technological means (such as artificially creating the conditions of heterosexual fecundity through insemination). Though I do not think it has to mean that there is less dignity involved in one union than another- but certainly a difference in their place or role as integral to the structure of society. Strictly speaking, what I am saying is that we need to find a place in the "body of society" for homosexual unions. It could not, in my understanding, be functionally equal to heterosexual unions- my toes are not equal to my fingers, but chop them off and I lose my balance.

The one doesn't follow from the other. Yes, families are the building blocks of society. That includes Gay families. Using terms like "primary sphere" is weaseling. Yes, there are more straight parents. So what? It turns out that Gay parents make great parents, so what difference does it make? Nobody's trying to chop anything off. Nobody is taking anything away from anyone. It's just recognizing the diversity of functioning families.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Auto,

In my analogy the "chopping off" referred to the efforts of people to prevent a viable sphere for the flourishing and development of homosexual unions and their children. Because same-sex led families do exist, and because they are able to provide good homes for adopted children, I liken efforts to prevent them from legal protection to "cutting off the toes", if you will.

 

[idea]

Wow - this thread is still going. So.... has anyone changede their mind on the sub? No? Well, I guess it is all just a big waste of time then...

I think the Catholic problem is that it rightfully sees marriage as historically serving as a fundamental institution for society- the building block of society as it were. Marriage for a great portion of human history has not been principally about love, but about social utility [ and necessarily so for that time!]. This is where the difficulty is introduced.
.

I think of fiddler on the roof - you know, the arranged marriage, and they have that song "Do you love me?"
watch YouTube - Fiddler on the roof - Do you love me ? (with subtitles)

I think people confuse love with lust. They are two very different things. True love is not born out of lust or instinct, it is born out of choice. Instinct/lust is selfish self-serving thing (not love). Choice - where you actually choose the other person, not out of any sexual favors that they can give you, not because you don't want to be alone, not for anything about yourself - when it is about the other person, that is love... Fiddler on the Roof - they had real love.

from:
Love Languages - Chapman
Chapter 3: Falling in love
Pg 30: the average life span of a romantic obsession is two years.

“in love” state gives us the illusion that we have an intimate relationship. The “in love” experience should not be called love

• falling in love is not an act of the will or a conscious choice.
• it is effortless, no discipline or conscious effort, instinctual animal nature, not selfless, no sacrifice, no thought or will in it.
• one who is in love is not genuinely interested in fostering the personal growth of the other person. Our purpose is to terminate our own loneliness and ensure result through marriage – does not focus on our own growth or on the growth and development of the other person, instead feel like you are at the apex of life’s happiness and our only desire is to stay there….

We can recognize the “in-love” experience for what it was – a temporary emotional high, and now pursue “real love” with our spouse.
Real love – a love that grows out of reason and choice, (not instinct) effort, and discipline. We choose to be kind, generous – this is real love.

 

[painted wolf]

So a couple that has been together for 30 years don't really love each other... they are just 'on an emotional high'?
Animal nature and all that....?

I think some people confuse love for lust too.. but in the wrong direction.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

I think some people confuse love for lust too.. but in the wrong direction.

wa:do

I agree.
I have even noticed that many times those who "reverse confuse" (for lack of a better term) them do so concerning situations that do not fit tidily into their preconceived notion of what love is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think people confuse love with lust. They are two very different things. True love is not born out of lust or instinct, it is born out of choice. Instinct/lust is selfish self-serving thing (not love). Choice - where you actually choose the other person, not out of any sexual favors that they can give you, not because you don't want to be alone, not for anything about yourself - when it is about the other person, that is love... Fiddler on the Roof - they had real love.

Any particular reason why you posted this in this thread?

 

[Storm]

Wow - this thread is still going.

Uh, no it wasn't. It'd been dead over a week when you revived it. Why'd you do that, I wonder?

 

[Smoke]

Any particular reason why you posted this in this thread?

Because she doesn't think gay people love; we just lust. It's a very common belief among anti-gay bigots, sustained by nothing but their own determined bigotry.

 

[painted wolf]

As someone transitioning from a "strait" to a "gay" relationship, I can tell you that my love for my spouse hasn't suddenly vanished and been replaced by lust.
If anything my love has deepened... we face a whole new set of challenges that as a "strait" couple we never thought about.
Our empathy for our gay and lesbian friends has certainly become much more informed.

wa:do

 

[blackout]

What "supporting traditional families" really means.

Paying the bills for families who have lots of kids they really couldn't afford?
(or at least being around to actively help in some substantial & valued way?)



*UV did the "traditional family" thing...(as she was "supposed to")...and now wonders why there is no support for her anywhere to be found.......*

***aside from her female athiest lover (and her female athiest lover's husband) that is...

go figure.

 

[blackout]

The roman catholic church should put it's money where it's mouth is.

(yes, UV is still a bit bitter...)