THIS IS A Catholic blog. I am a Catholic journalist and author. If you enjoy this Blog, you'll probably enjoy my books - so contact me (via a Comment to this blog) and ask me about them.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Read more about Britain and the ghastly Govt plans...
New York State passed SS marriage last year. It will slowly cross the entire Unted States. The notion of two people of the same sex are married is absurd. They may call this marriage, but we know it's not. Frankly this isn't even a religious issue. It's a common sense issue. What a violation of common sense is two people of the same genetalia being "married."
There's no 'more' to be found in that article. It's just the same old bald assertions that marriage is about procreation and some fact-free scare mongering about "social minefield[s]".
Religion doesn't own marriage - the latest ONS figures show that only around a third of all marriages in England and Wales are religious ceremonies - and it's going to lose this fight.
It is important not to overreact to this and similar issues. Some commentary has been near hysterical.
We should all be concerned that far too many children are brought up without the benefit of a stable two parent family. Marriage, as conventionally understood, is surely the best remedy for this and it is a prime reason why Christians should support marriage.
However, I do not see how conventional marriage is undermined by extending the same arrangement at a purely civil level to same sex couples; or, more to the point, how the lot of many children who have to endure the consequences of their parents' lifestyles would be improved by denying same sex couples a civil marriage.
"I do not see how conventional marriage is undermined by extending the same arrangement at a purely civil level to same sex couples." Wait a bit and it will become all too clear. Marriage has traditionally been supported by the State because it has contributed to the common good, by continuing and providing for the human race. Homosexual unions do not contribute to the common good and do not need any support from the state. As someone has pointed out, after this, on what grounds will the government not allow polygamy, if marriage can be redefined, how far is the Government willing to go?
It is a moot point whether the State really does support marriage any more. I would say that for a number of years now its stance has been distinctly neutral and non-committal.
But marriage does nonetheless contribute to the common good. Your assertion that homosexual unions do not contribute to the common good is presented without evidence.
It is also important to distinguish between the civil and sacramental concepts of marriage. Civil marriage is simply a contract and one should not be unduly concerned if the scope of that contract is varied. Sacramental marriage is of course possible only between a man and a woman. That principle remains inviolate and no one is attempting to challenge it as far as i know.
Homosexual unions do not produce children - the only reason the state got involved in marriage in the first place. Without the family there would be no state. Many churches do bless homosexual unions. If the state legitimizes them, some people reason: Why not the Church? Where I live homosexual relations are taught as just another form of acceptible sexuality, to young children in school. Parents are not allowed to withdraw their children from the classes: A programme designed by homosexuals. People have been taken to court, lost their jobs,for not wanting to rent a hall for a lesbian reception, discussing studies on homosexuality in their free time, not wanting to print homosexual literature. Fr. John Neuhaus used to say: When orthodoxy becomes optional it will soon be proscribed. (I'm quoting from memory but I think I've got the correct meaning). The Catholic Church isn't fighting against homosexual "Marriage" purely on religious grounds but because it is also against the natural law and reason. The Church also recognizes non religious marriages as valid non sacramental marriages.
Lateral thinking required. I'm referring to the post above from Elizabeth who seems to be describing a remarkably repressive regime and I was wondering where this could be. Obviously I am not asking for anyone's address.
And since you ask that of me, I too live in a small couple of rooms in an obscure corner of a suburb.
Canada: "The true north strong and free" We even have a special hate crime where it is not allowed to say anything negative about homosexuals. We have a general hate crime, but homosexuals have a special one all to themselves themselves.
Because behavior is emulated. Homosexuality comes about by several means. To keep this short, one of the means is emulation, not from a conscious decision but through a subconscious one. Children will emulate homosexual behavior. If you don't think so, look at the statistics of countries that allow open homosexuality and those that don't. All you have to do is look at the statistics of the divorce rate of people who come from divorced families. All you have to do is look at the statistics of smokers who had parents that were smokers.
To be clear, emulation is only one of the means of becoming homosexual. Some seem to be born with it, but not all. There are plenty of homosexuals who suddenly discover they are gay in mid life.
Manny, this is nonsense. You cannot emulate desire! And how can statistics from countries that don't allow (indeed punish, imprison)homosexuality possibly be meaningful. I came from a completely normal Catholic family and I am gay. And came out at the age of 37 because, like many many people of my age I was afraid to acknowledge my true self when I was younger.
13 comments:
New York State passed SS marriage last year. It will slowly cross the entire Unted States. The notion of two people of the same sex are married is absurd. They may call this marriage, but we know it's not. Frankly this isn't even a religious issue. It's a common sense issue. What a violation of common sense is two people of the same genetalia being "married."
There's no 'more' to be found in that article. It's just the same old bald assertions that marriage is about procreation and some fact-free scare mongering about "social minefield[s]".
Religion doesn't own marriage - the latest ONS figures show that only around a third of all marriages in England and Wales are religious ceremonies - and it's going to lose this fight.
It is important not to overreact to this and similar issues. Some commentary has been near hysterical.
We should all be concerned that far too many children are brought up without the benefit of a stable two parent family. Marriage, as conventionally understood, is surely the best remedy for this and it is a prime reason why Christians should support marriage.
However, I do not see how conventional marriage is undermined by extending the same arrangement at a purely civil level to same sex couples; or, more to the point, how the lot of many children who have to endure the consequences of their parents' lifestyles would be improved by denying same sex couples a civil marriage.
"I do not see how conventional marriage is undermined by extending the same arrangement at a purely civil level to same sex couples."
Wait a bit and it will become all too clear.
Marriage has traditionally been supported by the State because it has contributed to the common good, by continuing and providing for the human race.
Homosexual unions do not contribute to the common good and do not need any support from the state.
As someone has pointed out, after this, on what grounds will the government not allow polygamy, if marriage can be redefined, how far is the Government willing to go?
It is a moot point whether the State really does support marriage any more. I would say that for a number of years now its stance has been distinctly neutral and non-committal.
But marriage does nonetheless contribute to the common good. Your assertion that homosexual unions do not contribute to the common good is presented without evidence.
It is also important to distinguish between the civil and sacramental concepts of marriage. Civil marriage is simply a contract and one should not be unduly concerned if the scope of that contract is varied. Sacramental marriage is of course possible only between a man and a woman. That principle remains inviolate and no one is attempting to challenge it as far as i know.
Homosexual unions do not produce children - the only reason the state got involved in marriage in the first place. Without the family there would be no state.
Many churches do bless homosexual unions. If the state legitimizes them, some people reason: Why not the Church?
Where I live homosexual relations are taught as just another form of acceptible sexuality, to young children in school. Parents are not allowed to withdraw their children from the classes: A programme designed by homosexuals.
People have been taken to court, lost their jobs,for not wanting to rent a hall for a lesbian reception, discussing studies on homosexuality in their free time, not wanting to print homosexual literature.
Fr. John Neuhaus used to say: When orthodoxy becomes optional it will soon be proscribed. (I'm quoting from memory but I think I've got the correct meaning).
The Catholic Church isn't fighting against homosexual "Marriage" purely on religious grounds but because it is also against the natural law and reason.
The Church also recognizes non religious marriages as valid non sacramental marriages.
Good heavens. Where do you live???
In a small couple of rooms in an obscure corner of a suburb. Where do you live, and who are you?
Lateral thinking required. I'm referring to the post above from Elizabeth who seems to be describing a remarkably repressive regime and I was wondering where this could be. Obviously I am not asking for anyone's address.
And since you ask that of me, I too live in a small couple of rooms in an obscure corner of a suburb.
Canada: "The true north strong and free"
We even have a special hate crime where it is not allowed to say anything negative about homosexuals.
We have a general hate crime, but homosexuals have a special one all to themselves themselves.
How is society undermined by gay marriage?
Because behavior is emulated. Homosexuality comes about by several means. To keep this short, one of the means is emulation, not from a conscious decision but through a subconscious one. Children will emulate homosexual behavior. If you don't think so, look at the statistics of countries that allow open homosexuality and those that don't. All you have to do is look at the statistics of the divorce rate of people who come from divorced families. All you have to do is look at the statistics of smokers who had parents that were smokers.
To be clear, emulation is only one of the means of becoming homosexual. Some seem to be born with it, but not all. There are plenty of homosexuals who suddenly discover they are gay in mid life.
Manny, this is nonsense. You cannot emulate desire! And how can statistics from countries that don't allow (indeed punish, imprison)homosexuality possibly be meaningful. I came from a completely normal Catholic family and I am gay. And came out at the age of 37 because, like many many people of my age I was afraid to acknowledge my true self when I was younger.
I stand by what I said Sally. Homosexuality is a multifaceted phenomena. Part of it for some, not all, is emulation.
Post a Comment