Using that logic, the Church should allow lesbian marriages; Mary and all.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Using that logic, the Church should allow lesbian marriages; Mary and all.
Hope is the denial of reality
Honestly, Loki, I'm not sure what the big confusion is. I don't think that this procreation line is the main reason why homosexual marriage is opposed by church figures. My understanding is that the basic logic goes thus:
1. Homosexuality is a sin.
2. We can't outlaw homosexuality (at least any more), but we don't want it to become normative behavior in society.
3. Thus, we don't want the state to recognize homosexual unions as a 'normative' union.
4. As such, we will campaign to keep marriage as defined between 'one man and one woman'.
I'm not saying this is a good position, but my understanding it that it's the major line of thinking among those who oppose homosexual marriage. I think the procreation thing is a red herring; I don't think that the 'child centered institution' bullshit was even what he really thinks, let alone a common line of argument among opponents of same sex marriage.
As the chairman of the defense of marriage subcommittee, Bishop Cordileone has written that marriage should be limited to the union between a man and a woman because “marriage has been and should remain a child-centered institution.”
Hope is the denial of reality
Sorry, Loki, I edited my last sentence while you were posting.
He might or might not think it, but it's official Church doctrine. The Church is therefore in opposition to its own doctrine by not opposing any marriage where procreation isn't going to take place.
Hope is the denial of reality
Some subcommittee on same sex marriage does not exactly have the same weight as a papal decree in terms of doctrine. The same article you posted gives the real reason they're opposed - back in the 80s, the pope said homosexuality was a grave sin, and they certainly haven't changed their stance since then.
I'm sure that if you pressed these people on the particular quote you're referencing, they'll give you some claptrap about how while not all heterosexual marriages can end of having children, they are permitted in general because it's at least a possibility for the general class, while it's entirely impossible (at least naturally) for a homosexual union. More broadly, the other classes of sex you mention (say, with a menopausal woman or whatever) are not forbidden by church doctrine, so even if the basic point of sex is to have kids, they allow it in other circumstances for various reasons.
Regardless, this is all silly semantics. i don't get why you seem to think you've uncovered some fatal flaw in the argumentation of those opposed to same sex marriage. Their real motivation is largely immune to attack; you can disagree, but you can't prove them wrong.
I'm pretty sure that according to Church doctrine, procreation is the only reason for both sex and marriage. There might be some secondary benefits, but ultimately, you're meant to pump out kids.
I can prove them to be liars in their stated reason for opposing gay marriage. Either they should back off the procreation angle or they should admit that their reason for opposing gay marriages is their hatred of homosexuals.
Edit: Adultery is a mortal sin. What's the Church doing to stop it? And logically speaking, I'm pretty sure that adultery is a far bigger threat to traditional marriage than is gay marriage.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't disagree, but Church doctrine allows heterosexual sex (not just marriage) when procreation is impossible. The reason homosexual sex is not okay according to the church has nothing to do with its inability to produce kids, it has to do with its sinfulness.
*shrugs* I honestly don't think this procreation angle is a significant part of their argumentation - certainly it isn't for the majority of the discourse on the topic in the US, though I can't speak to details of Church writings since I haven't read them. I don't think you're proving anything about them hating homosexuals though - at most you're 'proving' something that they already readily admit to: they think homosexual sex is a sin, and they don't want that sin to become normative behavior.I can prove them to be liars in their stated reason for opposing gay marriage. Either they should back off the procreation angle or they should admit that their reason for opposing gay marriages is their hatred of homosexuals.
It's possible to believe that their beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior is rooted in homophobia and the like - it may even be probable. Yet you'll find it awfully hard to prove.
Another question: is there any particular reason that persistent homosexual activity is any worse than persistent adultery, masturbation, blasphemy, jealousy, disrespect toward parents, or anger? Why isn't the Church working through the state to eliminate the latter group?
Hope is the denial of reality
I can't speak for the Catholic Church on how they establish hierarchies of sin, but I'd suggest the major distinction is that homosexuality - in the context of same sex marriage - is a public sin, while most of the others you mention are private. And even if some are public, they are not tied into an institution like marriage which the state has a role in establishing normative conventions.
That being said, at least adultery does have some legal consequences re: divorce.
Except the Church is against divorce.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ah, but they're also in favor of penalizing adulterers.Except the Church is against divorce.
I'd like to see them attempt to reintroduce legislation to that effect. Of course we both know the Church isn't going to attack half of its followers.
Hope is the denial of reality
You may have unlocked another part of the reason why the church likes to pick on gays there, Loki.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
That goes to my point that the issue is inertia. The Church was at one stage passionately against allowing: contraception, adultery, divorce, abortion, gay marriage.
Where they're legal and the issues been settled there's not normally a resurgence of effort to criminalise it. But legalising any was fought against.
AFAIK they disapprove of those having sex too. Sex is not supposed to happen for any other reason than procreation. (Though I think they recently said that condoms might help stop the spreading of HIV and other STD's).
Congratulations America
Can't wait for the Vatican to lobby for a law banning pre-marital sex and any other sex not intended to lead to procreation.
Hope is the denial of reality
You should try to look at this like a catholic to understand why changing marriage is different for them than condemning sin. Marriage for them is a sacrament that the church bestows on true believers.It is holy and it can't be dissolved (the only valid reason for dissolution/annulment is if it was never consumed). If you get married without having the purpose of procreation you have obtained the sacrament on false pretenses as far as the Church is concerned. But once it is consumed the Church is powerless with regards to its continuation.Can't wait for the Vatican to lobby for a law banning pre-marital sex and any other sex not intended to lead to procreation.
When you sin, by having sex just for fun, sex with somebody of the same sex or not your spouse you are a sinner and can already be punished with witholding the sacrament of absolution.
Congratulations America
The part I don't get is that no one forces the Catholic Church to recognize or perform any marriage it doesn't want to recognize or perform.
Hope is the denial of reality
They don't get it either. I've heard this argument from many religious people; that they don't want to be forced to marry gay people. Last I checked, no one makes them marry non-church members to begin with. I certainly didn't marry in a church. The Catholic church (or any other institution) aren't the sole authority for marriage in America. It's just hypocrisy. Nothing new with humanity.
Well, they feel they invented the institution somehow. But as with many other things they simply copied something that was already around in Roman society. I personally still see marriage as a contract, not as some publication of my innermost feelings.
Congratulations America
That's how the government sees it as well; which is why I don't see why everyone should follow some church's doctrine on how they do marriage. They can have their sacrament; the rest of us are entering in our own contracts with our own definition of what a marriage should or should not be.
I don't see the Catholic Church opposing recognition of non-Catholic marriages either. So they don't seem all that concerned that most marriages in this country do not meet Catholic criteria...
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, I have yet to see anyone (including my Fundie cousins) denounce my very agnostic marriage. I did happen to produce a child; but the likelihood of that child becoming one of their flock is extremely low.
I like the idea of an agnostic marriage. "We may or may not be married, but have no way of knowing" ?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Haha, I guess I should say "non-religious" based marriage. I'm not the most eloquent of writers
I think the problem in your particular system is that you recognize marriages performed by religious bodies. In either Holland or Turkey you could get married in a house of worship all that you want, the state will not give it any consequence. Marriage there means going to either a town hall (NL) or a marriage office (TR). I understand in the US any licensed priest/minister/imam could marry you and have that marriage recognized by the state. It's not that strange that religious groups feel they have a stake in the definition of marriage in general. I mean, in theory in the US a muslim could be married by an orthodox rabbi couldn't he?
Congratulations America
In theory, yes.
The actual ceremony in a religious venue is for show. The priest then has to apply for a marriage certificate from the county clerk, just like any other officiant.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's a very marginal difference. In the NL or TR there never is an intermediary between the civil servant who officiates and the person who issues the proof of marriage. Religious organisations don't have a small role in the process, they have NO role at all in the process. And they have no role because the state in both cases wanted to leave no doubt about its predominance in the domain. That is also the reason why religious marriages have no more meaning than a little girl officiating in the marriage between her dolls.
And then of course, how many people are aware that the blessing is just a piece of show jewelry on a secular process? Perceptions are facts in day to day life.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote