I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
17 comments:
Since the whole concept of sin is so tightly controlled by the Catholic Church, the rest of society must, by default, come up with some other way of differentiating between right and wrong. Let the Church define sin any way it wants and just ignore it and live by your own moral values. That's my approach. The Church doesn't even define discrimination against gays as a sin. Shows what it knows.
Uh, no. The concept of sin is nearly universal; it just goes by other names in other religions and cultures.
The problem I have is the current proposal to eliminate any differentiation between right and wrong at all.
There is no such current proposal. For example, New Jersey just outlawed conversion therapy on minors. Why? Not to eliminate the differentiation between right and wrong, where it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is right or wrong, but to eliminate the wrong of conversion therapy. It is not that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It matters that it is not wrong and people who say it is need to be prohibited from imposing that view on minors. See the difference?
No, I don't. There are all sorts of things we impose on minors. Not drinking, for instance. It can only be because people want to ignore that homosexuality is wrong, that they make this change. And I have done enough research to be convinced that homosexuality is wrong- for the homosexual, just as promiscuous sex is wrong for the heterosexual or usury is wrong for the banker.
Your "research" has convinced you that homosexuality is wrong. And usury is wrong. Well, I'm glad you're not the one making the decisions about either. I wouldn't own a house if it weren't for "usury".
I'm not sure if I would or wouldn't. Easy credit is hyperinflationary, if there was less money available for real estate, real estate would be cheaper. You can't get around the law of supply and demand, and making gay marriage legal isn't going to eradicate AIDS or change the fact that most homosexual unions are no more monogamous than heterosexual unions in America, or that the primary model of homosexual relationships is predatory.
It is a sin, according to the Church, to hate anyone. In fact, as Catholics, we're supposed to love everyone, as in, act in a loving manner. However, there's a difference between discriminating a person, or group, and disagreeing about the morality of an idea or desire.
What the Catholic church does say, to anyone, is "No, you shouldn't always have your way, it's not necessarily good for you." Which is basically the same thing that parents have been saying to their children for untold generations. "No, you may think you want that, but you shouldn't have it. It's not good for you." "You've had enough candy, no more." The Church teaches and practices moderation, self-control, and using things for what they were designed for.
The Church is saying "no, you can't have that. It's not good for you" to gays who want to marry.
How does the Church know whether or not marriage is good for a gay couple. Isn't it up to the couple to decide for themselves?
Considering the fact that it's not even considered to be actual marriage, but a sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and considering the fact that STDs, infidelity, depression, alcoholism, and abuse run rampant in homosexual relations specifically, and considering the fact that children whose parents are in such relationships report more instances of depression, alcoholism, and abusive relationships themselves than nuclear families, it's not particularly convincing that it's not bad, for health reasons, if nothing else (references from the CDC).
Also, like I have said before, gays can marry in the Church, it's just that homosexuals don't necessarily like the definition of marriage held by the Church. Also, it is considered by the Church (and the world at large) to not be a particularly good idea to marry someone who you don't want to marry, as is the case with most homosexuals towards anyone of the opposite sex.
The view of the Catholic church on marriage is held because of what marriage is for, and defined as being. That being, marriage is for the union of two persons to become one (specifically through sex, not just sexual intercourse), and to build up a family. The specific points being, that in order to have actual sex, being an act which could cause potential reproduction, it is literally impossible for homosexual couples to marry. Second, and equally important to marriage, is to build a biological family, which cannot be done by homosexual couples. That being said, infertile couples can be married, because if their spouse were fertile, they would be able to have children. However, this is intrinsically different from 'marrying' someone who wouldn't be able to have kids with their spouse even though both people are fertile.
This being said, if a couple is actively trying to not have kids, for no other reason than to not have kids, they are not considered married. If, however, they are trying to not have kids because of financial, medical, or other such issues (including infertility), they are still considered married.
I get it. The only acceptable marriage in the eyes of the Church is one that is completely open to producing children who then must be raised Catholic and fill the pews and collection baskets. Gays can't do that so they can't be married by the Church. The health risks are just useful to prove that the Church is right about gay sex.
No, that's the stand on anything that could be viewed as a marriage, whether it's been approved by the Church as being an actual marriage or not. Ergo, it doesn't matter if a gay couple considers themselves married to each other, their union is not comparable to one between a man and a woman. Marriage isn't about the religion, or only about husband and wife. It's about children, and providing for them, which is why people who aren't in love with each other can marry each other validly, and why the Catholic church states that if you wish to marry someone who's not Catholic, you should have a reason other than just being in love.
I'm only interested in marriage being recognized by society. I give up on fretting about them being grecognized by the Catholic Church.
Historically, although homosexual unions have been recognized by governments as being a form of union, they have never historically been elevated to the point of being equal with marriage, not due to religion, but due to the fact that the bond formed between a man and a woman as they build a family is intrinsically different from two people just loving each other. The shift towards having a homosexual union be considered marriage is because of the lack of focus on the part of society at large on what marriage is actually about, which is family, specifically children, not the couple. It's important that the couple work together and do the best they can to love each other, but marriage is specifically focused on building stable families. If it were just about loving someone else, then there's no point in making the promise of commitment formal, and no point in the tax-breaks given by governments to married couples, or the consideration given to married couples as far as military goes, because if it's not for building a family, then a married couple could go to war together, and there would be no reason to not allow it.
Society has changed. The primary purpose of marriage is no longer to produce children. It is to form a lasting partnership. That being the case, there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry. Gay marriage has been legal in my state (Massachusetts) for nine years. The Catholic Church is stuck having to oppose gay marriage because it is incapable of admitting that it was wrong, but has changed its policy.
You've made a good case for the Catholic Chiurch to politely decline to administer the sacrament of matrimony to anyone else than one man and one woman. You have not justified the Church's severe condemnation of it. If the Church refuses to perform a wedding for a same sex couple, that is its right under the First Amendment. All this other garbage about it being a mortal sin, about how it should be illegal, about it being a scandal for a Catholic baker, limo driver, florist, photographer, etc. to provide their goods and services for gay weddings is sheer lunacy.
The Church severely condemns any sex, or sexual act, outside of marriage. It doesn't matter whether it's between heterosexuals or homosexuals. Also, it's not necessarily a mortal sin, since the difference between a mortal and a venial sin lies mainly upon the person who commits it. In order to be a sin, an action must meet at least two of the following three requirements:
1) It must fall somewhere within the bounds of the seven deadly sins/ten commandments.
2) The person must know that it is wrong (how serious they consider the wrong to be affects whether it would be mortal or venial, depending on the case).
3) They must commit it of their own free will (so if they don't think that they have any choice, between doing one wrong thing and another wrong thing, then they will not be considered to have committed it of their own free will).
In order for something to be venial, it must meet at least three of these requirements. If it meets all three, then the second requirement helps to determine whether or not it is mortal. If they don't consider it to be particularly bad, then it may still qualify as being venial, while if they considered it a serious wrong, then it is definitely mortal (i.e., someone doesn't consider stealing to be very bad, but murder to be exceptionally bad). This is part of the reason why an examination of conscience is so important before confession.
As such, sex outside of marriage falls under the first category as lust, and the third (unless they're raped, in which case, it is not the sin of the victim, but the rapist).
As for the services of Catholics being denied to gay weddings, to not speak and act in opposition is to condone the action. Sins of omission can be just as serious as any other sin.
Kathryn,
When the Church condemns something, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that someone who is not practicing Catholicism can't do it? No, it means that people like you can't do it.
Post a Comment