So...

[DeeBye]

Obviously, because homosexual acts are immoral.

I'm not going anywhere near this thread now. It can only end in disaster and heartache.

[Chaerophon]

My inclination was that as long as the superstitions (for example, Judeo-Christian ethics) tipped the direction of the people in the right direction, "a direction" is better than no direction.

Socrates tried to convince us through reason that the virtuous life was best. Christianity told us that we'd go to hell without virtue and codified our behaviours. Which was more successful? The one that gave the sheep no choice. Faith and fear are much easier to promulgate than reason.

[DeeBye]

Faith and fear are much easier to promulgate than reason.

I learned a new word today.

1. To make known (a decree, for example) by public declaration; announce officially.

2. To put (a law) into effect by formal public announcement.

It's like propagate, only COOLER!

[Nystul]

Socrates tried to convince us through reason that the virtuous life was best. Christianity told us that we'd go to hell without virtue and codified our behaviours. Which was more successful? The one that gave the sheep no choice. Faith and fear are much easier to promulgate than reason.

You know, I can't figure out if this is a slam against Christianity or a testament to it's importance....

[Nystul]

I'm not going anywhere near this thread now. It can only end in disaster and heartache.

Words of wisdom right there. This thread could be far worse though.... it could be a mana shield bug debate.

[Chaerophon]

Well, I couldn't really tell you. The tone may have put you off, but it's definitely not meant to be a slam. Frankly, I think that the majority of Christ's (the man's) teachings ARE confirmable as "reasonable". To my mind, his immortality is of secondary importance to his teachings. Then again, I don't really know where I stand. Part of me thinks that to make a leap of faith on the basis of fear when reason and sympathy alone can (IMO) come so close to confirming his teachings is to become a slave. Part of me wonders if there's more to it than that. My future father-in-law basically condemned me as a heretic the other day for asking such questions, but I have a feeling that God will forgive me if I make a mistake. Maybe not. Maybe it doesn't matter. I certainly hope that "living the good life" and searching for real meaning is enough... then again, the bible basically says that it isn't. What kind of God would condemn someone who cares enough to search? Is that the kind of God I want to believe in?

Back to what I meant: for the most part, (IMHO) the same fundamental truths are imparted by both Socrates and Christ. A large part of me believes that to discover those truths through reason and sympathy makes their realization more meaningful than when the discovery is made through blind faith and fear. However, even Socrates was incapable of imparting his teachings through pure reason; he had to rely on "feelings" and notions of "spirit" to make some of his most important points, so maybe there is some real merit to arguments based more heavily in the "spiritual faith" that is absent from those depending on harder logic. Sometimes I feel like I can relate to those "feelings".

I was 100% sold on Socratic philsophy at one point; I was inspired. (Of course, I was also 100% sold on Marx, too, but that's another story...) Then I read Nietzsche for the first time, and then some Dostoevsky, and I began to feel an entirely different way, as though those "feelings" were nothing more than a sign of my weakness and fear of condemnation.... and that inspired me too. Anyways, the gist of my post was that Christian morality could potentially be conceived merely as an inferior form of Socratic virtue that depends on an inferior, yet more effective, means of propogation, that being fear.

And to conclude my embarassingly honest, rambling, and potentially incoherent post: please don't take offense, it's late, and I was just speculating, although the tone certainly may have indicated otherwise.

[Chaerophon]

Yeah, sorry, I think I read that one today and it must have been stuck up there. (unless you're NOT making fun of my pretentions, in which case, you're ever so welcome ;) ) I always think of "proliferate" when I read that word, but propogate works too. Hmmm, lots of p-words for the same thing. :blink:

[eppie]

Yes, Nico stop your "America bashing". Gay marriage is also illegal in all those other civilized countries like Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Ruanda, Chili etc. :D

[LiquidDamage]

"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)

I'm surprised nobody's gone after this.

I considered it myself, but this whole thread makes me sick. Some people I respect in here are acting like ignorant bigots and it really angers me. I just didn't want to get into it. I will support you, however, for saying pretty much exactly what I wanted to say.

Well, except for that bit about cold Chef Boyardee. That is just morally wrong, and it cheapens my enjoyment of my own Chef Boyardee, which is defined as canned Italian food products that you heat up. I am writing my congressman, and if there is any justice, your abominous acts of food consumption will be banned, so that I can finally eat my hot Chef Boyardee in peace.

Also, here is a link you might enjoy as much as I did:

http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display...3/4039aff78e385

[Moldran]

According to what I know of Christian religion (and very little, so please correct me if I'm wrong), the whole idea of marriage is to have children and recreational sex--sex without the making of children--is sinful. Christian religion is against homosexuality. Christian religion is also against adultery, beastiality, direct incest, sex out of wedlock, etc., because all those options are considered recreational sex. I've heard the argument that if gays could have children, then marriage would be okay. Why? Because Christian religion believes marriage is for having children, sex is for having children, and sex done without the purpose of babymaking is sinful.

There are actually many different opinions about sexuality within Christianity.
Some Christians may believe what you described. Many (I think most) Christians do not believe that recreational sex is sinful.

Some Christians believe that homosexual sex is sinful. Some Christians do not believe that.
Other Christians are not sure whether homosexual sex is sinful or not.

There is not a single "Christian opinion". It is alot more complicated than that.

[Moldran]

Christianity told us that we'd go to hell without virtue and codified our behaviours.

Sorry, but this one sentence shows that you have understood absolutely nothing about "Christianity". Some Christian individuals or Christian communities might teach such nonsense, but it really is BS.
A statement like "you go to hell if you do not lead a virtuous life" contradicts the very core teachings of Christianity. One of the core teachings of Christianity is that reconciliation with God cannot be achieved by virtue/religious actions/whatever. It is granted by God undeservedly.

I think one can even say that "codification of behaviours" often is sinful. Jesus definately teached quite the opposite of "codified behaviour".

To my mind, his immortality is of secondary importance to his teachings

He would disagree with that ;)

[kandrathe]

From above;

Christianity told us that we'd go to hell without virtue and codified our behaviours.

Not quite true. I'm not sure exactly where the inference of "hell" came from in Christian teaching, but it was certainly not from Christ. The Christian teaching, if I understand it correctly, is that there is a universal struggle between good and evil. The path of dedicating oneself toward goodness leads to somthing called salvation, which is explained as an eternal blissful existence with the force of good. The path of either indifference, or wickedness leads to death.

Well, I couldn't really tell you. The tone may have put you off, but it's definitely not meant to be a slam. Frankly, I think that the majority of Christ's (the man's) teachings ARE confirmable as "reasonable". To my mind, his immortality is of secondary importance to his teachings. Then again, I don't really know where I stand. Part of me thinks that to make a leap of faith on the basis of fear when reason and sympathy alone can (IMO) come so close to confirming his teachings is to become a slave. Part of me wonders if there's more to it than that. My future father-in-law basically condemned me as a heretic the other day for asking such questions, but I have a feeling that God will forgive me if I make a mistake. Maybe not. Maybe it doesn't matter. I certainly hope that "living the good life" and searching for real meaning is enough... then again, the bible basically says that it isn't. What kind of God would condemn someone who cares enough to search? Is that the kind of God I want to believe in?

Well, here is an interesting parallel to the main topic. Again, from the *real* Christians that I know, it is not fear, stupidity, or slavery that drives them. They are as dedicated to Christianity as they are to their marriage, or children. You often hear bandied about the phrase "a personal relationship with Christ", which I think is their way of commiting themselves through faith. You should set aside your concerns about forgiveness, as I understand it, in Christianity you can be forgiven for anything anytime just by asking for it sincerely.

I was 100% sold on Socratic philsophy at one point; I was inspired. (Of course, I was also 100% sold on Marx, too, but that's another story...) Then I read Nietzsche for the first time, and then some Dostoevsky, and I began to feel an entirely different way, as though those "feelings" were nothing more than a sign of my weakness and fear of condemnation.... and that inspired me too. Anyways, the gist of my post was that Christian morality could potentially be conceived merely as an inferior form of Socratic virtue that depends on an inferior, yet more effective, means of propogation, that being fear.

Sounds like me, but at some point you can learn to discern what is constructive, and what is destructive. We are all traveling on this road to seek enlightenment. If you now mix in some study of Chinese, Indian, and Tibetan philosophies you may end up somewhere around me. Personally, I think we each need to make a decision about what we would like our lives to be like, and that is really all we have direct influence upon. If the truth of the universe and our purpose for existence is in any confusion, then let us all be deluded toward those philosophies that make us more like Socrates, or Mother Teresa, rather than Adolf Hitler, or Stalin.

[kandrathe]

To relate it to gay marriage, I'm not for it or against it. I see this whole argument as "Does the Christian church think this is okay?" According to what I know of Christian religion (and very little, so please correct me if I'm wrong), the whole idea of marriage is to have children and recreational sex--sex without the making of children--is sinful. Christian religion is against homosexuality. Christian religion is also against adultery, beastiality, direct incest, sex out of wedlock, etc., because all those options are considered recreational sex. I've heard the argument that if gays could have children, then marriage would be okay. Why? Because Christian religion believes marriage is for having children, sex is for having children, and sex done without the purpose of babymaking is sinful.

Christianity does not condemn pleasure, even if it is sexual. The prohibitions and sexual morality of Christianity are derived from Judaism. The prohibitions within Judaism as I understand them are derived from what worked for social mores within that middle eastern Semitic culture to maintain order and unity in the society over about a ten thousand year period.

Take the religion OUT of the government...

I agree in principle, but it is easier said than done.

...and realize that people regardless of race or gender can raise fine and morally-upstanding kids

I think children are best raised by their parents. If it must be done by others then the State as guardians of the child should make the determination within the available pool of applicants (regardless of maritial status). From my study of child and adolescent psychcology and experience I would say that the first choice would be to find a substitute stable family with a man, a woman and 1 or 2 children. Both male and female children use their parental relationships as models of how to relate to others. Boys learn about maleness from their father, and about femaleness from their mothers. Single mothers in our society will tell you how important it is for them to find an adult male father figure for their sons. Loving homesexual same sex couples may be able to meet all the needs of adoptive children, but I think it would be much harder for social workers to insure that the placement is in the best interest of the child.

[Occhidiangela]

A nice civilized country. :D

[Occhidiangela]

Why did the Monseigneur marry my wife and I in a Catholic Church wedding? I am not, nor was I Catholic. She was.

Was this matching of a bloody pagan and a dear sweet Catholic some sort of heresy?

I wonder at your assertion being a matter of the local parish and it policies versus a universal policy. In short, I have heard no such policy from out local Bishop, declaring all of the good Baptist couples down here as living in sin.

Where did you get that little tidbit? I am curious.

[ShadowHM]

You still have not explained why it is a bad thing for society for homosexuals to make a commitment in the form of marriage to one another.


Obviously, because homosexual acts are immoral.

Much better, and thank you for finally saying it. Moral codes are always internally consistent, so there is no way to discuss them other than to affirm or deny one's belief in them. In other words, 'nuff said.

Recognizing 2 men or 2 women as a legitimate family core through the institution of marriage would be one more strike against the already struggling concept of the nuclear family. In that regard, such marriages strike me as being as harmful to the institution and it's role in society as the oft-referenced Britney marriage.

Now here, perhaps, we have some room for discussion.

I quite agree that that the nuclear family is a struggling concept these days. I suspect that where we part company is on what it takes to mend it.


Frankly, the very concept of family has been under siege for well over a hundred years and the assaults have indeed weakened it to the point that I too worry about it.

Assaults from the likes of Britney's infamous attempt to seek publicity to rescue a flagging career are trivial compared to the more broad and insidious assaults from other influences.

First, I will agree firmly that a 'two blood parents, one mother/one father-who-love-and-respect-one-another' is a much better situation in which to be reared than any other of the usual combinations these days.

However, the very concept of the 'nuclear family' is a fairly new one, and I believe it to be a much weaker one than what it replaced. I see many of our societal woes stemming from the loss of that wider family group that most were reared within before that. We used to be nomadic hunter/gatherers who lived in extended family groups. We followed that with thousands of years of living within extended family groups in agricultural settings.

The catalyst for the eroding of the extended family as a mechanism for rearing children was the Industrial Revolution. One no longer made a job where one was reared - one went to where the job was and both spouses usually worked there. The grannies/aunties (and to a lesser extent, grandfathers and uncles) who reared the children while the mother and father worked in the fields as agricultural workers were left behind. Children no longer learned their crafts from their parents. Immigration patterns to North America (what you seem to be considering your benchmark) very often left the extended family behind completely, so the nuclear family seemed to be all there was.

Changing patterns of employment still make for assaults upon the family. The presence of women in the workplace is not new; but having women in the workplace who do not have family members to raise their children is new. Then we have the insistence of modern society that one follows the job, and re-locates when necessary, leaving behind any alternative support system that might have been generated.

Well-intentioned changes to marriage laws that made it easier to escape bad marriages further eroded the concept. If one lived within an extended family, there would be checks, balances, good examples and teaching to foster a marriage. Living in isolated ‘nuclear family’ groups made those absent. The churches were an adjunct to the extended family that tried to aid there to foster good marriages, but they lacked the strength of a family to do this.

To add to the mix, there is another influence that has been creeping into our society – to wit, a sense of ‘entitlement’. Good things are not earned by hard work, one is entitled to them. So many (most?) people do not seem to wish to work at a making a marriage functional, they ‘should not have to work for that, it should just come to them’. Quick fixes are always sought instead of the more difficult route of daily effort. (The pharmaceutical companies have been exploiting this to great profit – why work at being healthy when you can take a pill?)

I am sure there are more pieces to that puzzle. But the point I wanted to drive home is that the nuclear family never was a functional construct for our species. It has clearly faltered if not failed as a basic building block for society. Your post implied that you believe that allowing homosexuals to marry would be just one more blow to that foundation, but I believe that it was a weak foundation to start with. It is too late to go back to the extended family as a foundation.

Hence, I believe that if homosexuals wish to try to create their own nuclear families and have society recognize them as valid, it is better than allowing the other factors to continue to erode the fabric of society. The nuclear family is a weak building block, but it is better than having none. The presence of two committed, loving and respectful parents (albeit of the same sex) is preferable to not having any role model at all for how to get along with one another.

Of course, since I don’t believe that homosexuals are immoral it is much easier to have that opinion. ;)

[gekko]

(1) Because the institution of marriage is critical to the social structure of family.  It is through the concept of family that marriages can have a greater impact on society outside of the private relationship between the two people, which is important to the two people themselves but otherwise far from critical.

You still have not explained why it is a bad thing for society for homosexuals to make a commitment in the form of marriage to one another.


(3) Obviously, because homosexual acts are immoral.  I suppose you were hoping for something deeper and more rational than that, though.  Don't get your hopes up!

(2) I would consider a child with either no mother or no father to be in a broken family.  It may be the best situation available for some kids, and they may "make it through" just fine, but in my opinion there are significant points in life where you feel like you need a mother or father, and I'm convinced that the gender aspect is quite relevant (perhaps I've heard too many Mother's Day and Father's Day poems).  Recognizing 2 men or 2 women as a legitimate family core through the institution of marriage would be one more strike against the already struggling concept of the nuclear family.  In that regard, such marriages strike me as being as harmful to the institution and it's role in society as the oft-referenced Britney marriage.

I'll address the points as I've enumerated them.

(1) + (2) "[...] institution of marriage is critical to the social structure of family", "I would consider a child with [...] no mother or no father to be in a broken family"

In a word, bull#$%&. Why is the institution of marriage so "critical" to the structure of family? I know, and I'm sure everyone here can give many examples, of "typical" families that are so hopelessly broken it'll be a miracle if the children live past their teens. I also know, and I'm sure many people here can give many examples, of "gay" couples and other "unusual" family situations where the child is one of the luckiest, safest, most loved people in the world. Having a "traditional" family does not make the family whole. Being gay does not make you a bad mother/father.

I will absolutely and totally agree that there are times in a child's life where not having access to a mother or father will leave them lacking for guidance. I will, however, point out that even if a child had a thousand fathers and mothers, he/she will almost certainly be frustrated, alone and lacking some form of parental guidance. Having a mother and a father does not guarantee a child a proper upbringing. Being gay does not make you a bad mother or father!

I would suggest the reason we are seeing the "typical" family disentegrate is that the family is no longer a neccessity at all. A hundred years ago, you had a big family or you were probably dead. Children were needed to help on the farm or work for the family. That's simply no longer the case in most First World Countries. Rasising a family is no longer a need, thus, there is no set direction for the family to take.

I wonder what you think about women working while men stay home. I'd like to point out that until very recently, having a stay at home father and a working mother would have been considered a "broken home."

The fact is that the current, "traditional" or "typical" marriage or family is not the only way to raise a family, and is certainly not the only way to have a loving relationship. You are using the status quo to prove the status quo should remain. Just because it's the way we've been doing things for hundreds of years, doesn't mean it can't change.

This all brings us to (3). And, like the points I discussed above, one thing strikes me here.

"Obviously, because homosexual acts are immoral."

This is your OPINION. I will defend to the death your right to believe and say this, but I will fight harder to defend that this is an OPINION, not fact.

As a quick note: when I refered to laws, the bill of rights, etc, in the states preventing discrimination against sexual orientation, I was refering to the Supreme Court's decision that preventing gay marriages was unconstitutional. THEY were very clear concerning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

I will not sit here and try to convince you that you are wrong believing what you believe. However, if you expect me to accept your opinions as fact, then I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

That's what this is really about -- who is impressing their opinions on others. Gays being married does not take away from your liberties in any way, shape or form. If your OPINION that homosexual acts are immoral is from religious beliefs, I suggest you let (G)god(s) do the judging and let people make their own "mistakes."

Tell me how two people you have never met being married takes away from your liberties. Tell me how the behaviour of two people you will never meet takes away your freedoms.

To reiterate one final thing: being gay or straight does not make you a good OR bad parent. The "traditional" family is NOT always the "best" way to do things.

Times change. When people are willing to accept the opinions of others (even if they don't agree with them), they change for the better. I grant you your beliefs and opinions. Don't TELL me your opinion is FACT.

gekko

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Why did the Monseigneur marry my wife and I in a Catholic Church wedding? I am not, nor was I Catholic. She was.

Was this matching of a bloody pagan and a dear sweet Catholic some sort of heresy?

Same situation here, Occhi. Father Paul interviewed us before we had our own Catholic wedding (I'm not, wife is) to determine if we were "suitable" to get married. I asked the Father if I was required to convert to Catholicism in order for him to do the ceremony; he replied "No, forcing conversion just makes for bad Catholics". Father Paul was a bit more liberal in his views than the priests of a generation ago.

On the other hand, I have a friend of mine that did indeed have to become Confirmed in the Catholic faith before either his to-be in-laws or the local priest would consent to the wedding in their cathedral.

I wonder at your assertion being a matter of the local parish and it policies versus a universal policy. In short, I have heard no such policy from out local Bishop, declaring all of the good Baptist couples down here as living in sin.

Where did you get that little tidbit? I am curious

As I said in the previous post, this is from a real-life actual event in my family; I suggest you contact your own referenced Monseigneur and ask him directly. After dancing around the subject for about 15 minutes, I'm sure he'll give you an answer of some sort.

Let me know.

*tips helm*

[--Pete]

Arggggh! I hate premature posting.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Actually, Nico is right. The Catholic Church does not recognize any marriage outside their church as valid. Thus, a Catholic that was married in a civil services can get divorced and then re-marry in the Catholic Church. The "sin" of co-habitation can be forgiven through Confession (the sacrament, not little c "confession" :) ). OTOH, if a couple marries in the Catholic Church, then that marriage can only be dissolved through death or annulment. Annulment, in effect, is a claim that the marriage never took place. Some very "funny" things have been used as rationals of annulment.

Why did the Monseigneur marry my wife and I in a Catholic Church wedding? I am not, nor was I Catholic. She was.

Yep. So what? What Nico actually said was:

The Catholic church does not only refuse to recognize civil unions as "marriages", but also refuse to acknowledge a marriage within another church as a "marriage" either.

Nowhere in there is the requirement that both parties (or either for that matter, but that case would indeed be strange) be Catholic. Just that the marriage be performed by a priest of the Catholic religion in accordance with their ritual.

In the past, a part of the requirement for a non-Catholic to marry a Catholic was that the Catholic be free to practice his/her religion and that any children be raised in the Catholic faith. I don't know if this is still the case.

--Pete