Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
How have societies gone about producing the type of long-term father-mother partnerships discussed in Part 5? In particular, how does society elicit this investment from men in spite of what would seem to be a strong natural inducement toward promiscuity?
Throughout history, societies have done this by creating cultural milieux in which, to varying degrees, sex outside of a sanctioned, enduring relationship is discouraged (forbidden, taboo and/or punishable) and comparatively hard to get, while such sanctioned, enduring relationships are the expected and respectable norm. Once again, I’m not saying that the Christian ideals of chastity, monogomay and fidelity have always been the ideal in theory or in practice, but a convergence of sexual ethics across cultures tending in this direction can certainly be observed.
The tart idiom “Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?” expresses tolerably well both the man’s natural disposition and the community’s interest in ensuring that he is not free to indulge himself as he sees fit. “Getting the milk for free” must be discouraged—and it must be discouraged across the board. The virtue of half the women in a community is undermined if the other half are reliably wanton. Communities therefore have historically shamed wanton behavior, and shamed the families in which it occurs.
Too often this has been taken to grotesque and tragic extremes, up to and including honor killings. Too often, too, the burden and consequences of social stigma have fallen disproportionately or entirely on women, who already bear all the physical difficulties of procreation (and precisely because of that fact). Even so, in principle the shame mechanism and other forms of stigma have a clear benefit for society. (“Buying the cow” is obviously a demeaning metaphor, intentionally so, since the expression itself has a shaming function and is only cited by way of criticizing wanton behavior. It’s only when the milk is free that the cow metaphor is used.)
The health of marriage as a social institution is directly related to this social mechanism of problematizing sex outside of marriage. As noted in Part 5, marriage as a social institution has always existed to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and the next generation. In a society that imposes no meaningful obstacles to or consequences for sexual irresponsibility, or that imposes only weak obstacles or consequences, marriage cannot perform this essential function. A culture that cannot clearly affirm the “No” of marriage is a society in which the “Yes” of marriage loses its meaning.
In such a culture, responsible behavior will become the exception rather than the rule. Some men and women will still form faithful, long-term relationships, partly because of the natural advantages of this type of behavior and partly because psychologically and spiritually we are made for love and virtue. But marriage as an institution cannot thrive in such a culture, and the culture itself will suffer for it, as in fact our culture is suffering from increasingly absentee fatherhood (see Part 3).
It has never been the case, of course, that all children enjoy the benefits of being raised by their biological father and mother. A parent may be abandoned or widowed and left to raise the children alone. A single parent may partner with grandparents, aunts, uncles or other relatives; they may rely on neighbors, nurses, nannies, babysitters or daycare services. (Any of these extramarital sources of support may also be involved, of course, where there is an intact marriage.)
Additionally, a single parent may go on to marry someone else, forming a step-family. Only in this case, though, has the new domestic arrangement been regarded as a marriage. If a divorced mother and widowed grandmother are raising a child together, their partnership may be as vital to that child’s well-being as that of a father and mother. Yet in no society in the world would they ever have been married.
It could be objected that marriage is for creating kinship, and since the mother and grandmother are already family, marriage would be redundant. In our society, though, a “marriage” would allow, for example, the grandmother to benefit from the working mother’s work-provided benefits. Beyond that, we could imagine a divorced mother living with a widowed neighbor instead of her own mother. In that case, there would be no kinship bond.
None of this changes the fundamental reality, noted in Part 5, that marriage as a social institution exists to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and the next generation. That is why a divorced mother who marries a new husband is recognized as marrying him—not because they will be partnering to care for children who have come into the world by some means, but because she is a woman and he is a man, and marriage exists to regulate sexual activity between men and women, which is where babies come from in the first place.
It is no objection to this to note, as same-sex “marriage” advocates constantly do, that some married couples are infecund. The large majority of marriages in history have necessarily been contracted in the absence of any knowledge of the partners’ fecundity. Moreover, while it has always been possible for fecundity to be definitively established, infecundity has historically been and largely remains elusive. A couple many be childless for many years and suddenly be surprised with a pregnancy. Communities have never had the leisure of marrying only those men and women who can and will bear children. The safest and best course for society is to treat every pairing of a man and a woman as potentially fruitful.
It even serves the social good of marriage to treat men and women who partner after normal childbearing years in the same way. That is the other favorite example of same-sex “marriage” advocates: If marriage is all about procreation, why should aged couples be allowed to marry? What this really means, I suppose, is why should women well past menopause be allowed to marry, since for male fertility there is a decline but no definitive end. (Even with female fertility there is a gradual transition rather than an abrupt cessation, and surprises can still happen for some time.)
Part of the answer, of course, is that elderly couples can obviously be married, because every married couple reaches old age unless one is prematurely bereaved of the other. A marriage of elderly people is in keeping with the institution of marriage. Beyond that, society’s vested interest in regulating sexual relations between men and women extends even to those beyond childbearing years. While unregulated or unsanctioned relations between men and women past childbearing years might not result in children born out of wedlock, it still tends to undermine the social ethic regarding marriage as the privileged context for socially sanctioned sexual relations between men and women.
A rule that applies to older members of the community as well as younger ones is stronger for it; indeed, particularly in societies with a healthy respect for elders, the natural authority of older members of the community strengthens the rule. Younger people often feel freer to disregard rules that they see their elders disregarding. As noted above, “free milk” must be discouraged across the board to keep the premium as healthy as possible. Communities would gain nothing, and would stand to erode the moral force of marriage, by adding riders such as “Women well past menopause are free to shack up or fool around,” etc.
In short, the more closely and firmly a culture adheres to a simple, strong and clear rule like “Men and women must be married to sleep together,” the healthier marriage as a social institution is likely to be in that culture. Not only does the absolute rule correspond to the reality that we are made for love and virtue and that promiscuity is spiritually and psychologically unhealthy, it also serves the community’s interest in regulating sexual relations between men and women as well.
Comments
Post a Comment
So how does one go about effectively enforcing the rule found in the final summary paragraph?
@ Richard: Ah, there’s the rub, and the subject (or at least a converging subject) to my next post. The whole problem is that in our society marriage no longer effectively serves its essential social function—it no longer effectively regulates sexual activity between men and women, because the social consensus that nonmarital sex is impermissible has been eroded. Nothing is regulated, because everything is more or less permissible, and so marriage is more or less an institution without a raison d’etre. Which is why we can’t figure out what sorts of relationships can and can’t constitute marriage. We no longer know what marriage is.
Steven, thank you for confirming things I have thought about marriage since same-sex “marriage” began forcing me to think about it, plus filling in some of the gaps in my own thoughts. While those advocating practices that further erode marriage must often be jolted into a deeper level of thought by directly confronting their ideas, I believe that the best way to fight the evil things that are happening to marriage is to emphasize the truth about what marriage is, rather than trying primarily to be abrasive toward those evil things, and this series does that.
There’s no proof a prohibition of sex before marriage was effective. In addition, why should it be? What’s the point? This obsession with ‘regulating’ sex speaks to an unhealthy preoccupation. If all marriage means to you is sex, then marriage is, indeed dead. And same sex marriage has NO effect whatsoever on marriage. None. Nobody has EVER presented a single shred of evidence it does.
@ Bob: You don’t read very well, do you, friend?
Steve, unfortunately I can read better than you can think! It seems you’ve failed to address any of the points I raised.
@ Bob: I’m not commenting on your blog. You’re commenting on mine. As long as you keep batting at straw men that have nothing to do with what I’ve said, I won’t be particularly motivated to address whatever extraneous points you may be raising.
Hmmm…you seem to have skipped over the points I raised, so I’ll go over them in some detail. First, where’s the proof people DIDN’T have sex outside of marriage? While you say, in paragraph 2 above, this was a taboo, and it was, there’s no proof it was effective. That’s point 1. The implicit assertion seems to be that at one time there was this “Leave it to Beaver” view of marriage that is now under attack by gay marriage advocates. But the fact is, marriage was never as rigidly defined as this since people WERE having sex outside of marriage quite frequently.
Point 2: ‘health of marriage as a social institution is directly related to problematizing sex outside of marriage’. Really? Where? When? What is ‘heatlhy’? When women have no rights INSIDE marriage, as they once were viewed as chattel? Where do you get THAT assertion? What is ‘healthy’ marriage, especially when, in THIS country, the most religious in the Western world, our divorce rates are relatively high and this is BEFORE same sex marriage was legalized! And men NEVER suffered the same stigma associated with premarital sex that women did, so it was a one way street.
Point 3: “Marriage as a social institution exists to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and for the benefit of the next generation” (sic). There are many reasons people get married and this sexual determinism, bordering on obsession that so many people have is, itself, destructive. Why? Because it reduces marriage to sex. As we see in the Southern states, with their higher incidences of younger marriage, etc., where sex IS considered confined to marriage (in more religious states), this leads to higher divorce and abortion rates than in states with more liberal attitudes towards premarital sex, like MA. This mythology that people generally didn’t have sex before marriage, and that gay marriage attacks a ‘traditional’ view of marriage is utter nonsense which has NO evidence behind it. None.
Again and again I’ve asked for evidence of your assertions. Where is the PROOF that liberal attitudes towards premarital sex lead to ‘attacks’ on marriage? Where is the PROOF that gay marriage causes problems for ‘traditional’ marriage? Where is the EVIDENCE? THAT is how this should be discussed: in the light of EVIDENCE rather than arbitrary and random assertions about gays and fabrications about premarital sex.
1. “Where’s the proof people DIDN’T have sex outside of marriage?” Who could possibly be so stupid as to think that there was ever a time or place when people didn’t have sex outside of marriage?
2. “The implicit assertion seems to be that at one time there was this ‘Leave it to Beaver’ view of marriage” Not only is this not implicitly asserted, it is explicitly and repeatedly not asserted. I understand the rhetorical advantages of caricature, but I’m not inclined to defend views I haven’t taken, much less to invest energy in responding to potential misunderstandings I’ve already repeatedly addressed.
3. “Really? Where? When?” Pick a time and place at random and let’s talk.
4. “What is ‘heatlhy’? When women have no rights INSIDE marriage, as they once were viewed as chattel? ... And men NEVER suffered the same stigma associated with premarital sex that women did, so it was a one way street.” If you read more carefully, you might notice I’ve addressed these points, at least implicitly.
5. “What is ‘healthy’ marriage, especially when, in THIS country, the most religious in the Western world, our divorce rates are relatively high and this is BEFORE same sex marriage was legalized!” Gosh, I never thought of that. Except when I did. In fact that’s been a big part of my point. I’ve said it again and again and again. Apparently you haven’t noticed.
6. “There are many reasons people get married” Ah, but I’m not talking about why people get married. I’m talking about how the institution of marriage benefits society.
7. “Because it reduces marriage to sex.” Anyone who can read can see how early and often I have rejected this reductionism. How many times must someone say a thing before he is safe from being accused of saying exactly the opposite?
bob said, ‘The implicit assertion seems to be that at one time there was this “Leave it to Beaver” view of marriage that is now under attack by gay marriage advocates. But the fact is, marriage was never as rigidly defined as this since people WERE having sex outside of marriage quite frequently.’
Either there was never a “Leave it to Beaver” view of marriage and all sex both inside and outside of marriage has always conformed to society’s idea of what is proper, or that view did (does) exist and people having sex outside of marriage did not conform to society’s idea of what is proper. You’ve provided no evidence or reasoning to support the former or refute the latter.
“men NEVER suffered the same stigma associated with premarital sex that women did”
Perhaps in some circles, but I would suggest that both men and women having premarital sex suffer the same stigma amongst the vast majority of those taking a stand for marriage in this country.
“There are many reasons people get married and this sexual determinism, bordering on obsession that so many people have is, itself, destructive. Why? Because it reduces marriage to sex.”
I suggest that rather than reducing marriage it raises sex.
Steve, regarding point 1, that’s EXACTLY my point; to say marriage regulates sex outside of marriage is plainly wrong. And, yes, you do have this assertion, woven throughout your blog, that there is some mythical view of marriage where 2 virgins get married and that’s pretty much the way it’s always been. NONSENSE! You keep running away from your own assertions! As to women and chattel, yes you DID address this, sotto voce, hoping no one would notice such a cultural change applies to MANY institutions, INCLUDING MARRIAGE. THAT’S THE POINT. Regarding point 5, this is the “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play” position. If marriage WAS attacked it was an inside job. WE STRAIGHTS did this. Gays have had NO…NO…NO effect on marriage at all. There are countries and states where gay marriage is legal. NO PROOF that this has an effect. Yet you consistently refuse to address this. And the ‘institution’ exists, apart from its benefits, because people CHOOSE it. They choose it for MANY reasons and the sexual reductionism you NOW run away from was NEVER apart of it. This fabrication that marriage is under attack from gays is indefensible. You have offered NO proof and you construct these elaborate Thomas Kincaide like sandcastles that you abandon as soon as they’re attacked. WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT GAY MARRIAGE AFFECTS SOCIETY??
Kevin, I’m uanaware of ANY social stigma attached to men, comparable to ‘promiscuous’ women. I’m sure we can think of any number of names for women who are loose. There are none for men. The ‘Leave it to Beaver’ view of marriage looked good on TV. It never existed in reality. Almost no one waited until marriage to have sex so either they didn’t think it was wrong OR the ‘traditional’ view of sex as being confined to marriage was just what everyone said was true, ‘wink, wink, nudge nudge’.
Bob:
“that’s EXACTLY my point; to say marriage regulates sex outside of marriage is plainly wrong.” Okay, I’m trying to follow the logic here. You seem to be saying that either (a) people didn’t have sex outside of marriage at some point and time in the past, or else (b) to say marriage regulates sex outside of marriage is plainly wrong. Trying to see the logic ... trying ... sorry.
“And, yes, you do have this assertion, woven throughout your blog, that there is some mythical view of marriage where 2 virgins get married and that’s pretty much the way it’s always been. NONSENSE! You keep running away from your own assertions!” If that misreading works for you in spite of my explicit statements to the contrary, I don’t have the time or energy to correct it. I’ll just trust other readers to read for themselves.
“As to women and chattel, yes you DID address this, sotto voce, hoping no one would notice such a cultural change applies to MANY institutions, INCLUDING MARRIAGE.” You can read minds now ... and yet, you can’t read words.
“If marriage WAS attacked it was an inside job. WE STRAIGHTS did this.” Amazing. It’s like ... it’s like you’ve read what I’ve been saying from the beginning! Except you seem to think you’re introducing some new, apparently damaging point. Please try going back to the beginning of my blog posts and starting over. In fact, just read the first blooming sentence of Part 1 (and keep going, if you have the stamina).
“There are countries and states where gay marriage is legal.” Yes, for a whole whopping decade, and just look how strong marriage is going in the Netherlands today! Thanks for clearing that up.
@ Bob:
Wait, WHAT?? Where the heck is your evidence for THAT?!!
Steve, people have sex outside of marriage. Everyone…repeat…everyone does. So marriage has no effect on sex at all. This notion that people NEVER had sex outside marriage until recently, while quaint, is wrong. Let me point out where you assert that people didn’t have sex until they got married:
“Throughout history, societies have done this by creating cultural milieux in which, to varying degrees, sex outside of a sanctioned, enduring relationship is discouraged”
“Communities therefore have historically shamed wanton behavior, and shamed the families in which it occurs.”
“marriage as a social institution has always existed to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and the next generation. In a society that imposes no meaningful obstacles to or consequences for sexual irresponsibility, or that imposes only weak obstacles or consequences, marriage cannot perform this essential function”
These quotes, or others like them, are repeated over and over, as if, somehow, there was a time when NO ONE had sex outside marriage. And THAT is WRONG. People, in fact, almost ALL people had sex outside marriage. It’s NONSENSE to say that there was this golden time, outlined by your quotes above, where people DIDN’T have sex and now, MIRABILE DICTU! gays are causing this whole social contract to collapse.
The REAL problem you have is this: If these social pressures were effective and people WEREN’T having sex BEFORE the gay marriage issue came up, THEN you would have an argument. But people WERE having sex outside marriage AND BEFORE they got married. GAY MARRIAGE HAS NO EFFECT.
The central tenet you express…that marriage is being redefined by GAY MARRIAGE and causing changes in sexual behavior IS WRONG. You keep failing to address this issue.
Steve, regarding the HISTORICAL RATES of premarital sex, start here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/293258/premarital_sex_just_as_common_in_days.html
Incidentally, Steve, you might want to check this website regarding marriage rates in the Netherlands. The steepest drop in rates occurred between 1970 and 1985 when the rate dropped by almost 50%
Gay marriage became legal in 2001. Since then the marriage rate has dropped by about 10%. So whatever was affecting marriage was happening LONG before gay marriage.
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/netherlands-marriage-and-divorce-rate-1970-2005/
@ Bob:
“Steve, people have sex outside of marriage. Everyone…repeat…everyone does. So marriage has no effect on sex at all.”
Even granting the (patently false) premise, do you really think the conclusion follows? Are you that confused?
For example, how is it that our parents managed to have scandalously high rates of premarital sex, yet the illegitimacy rate was a tiny fraction of what it is today, in spite of widely available contraception and abortion?
If marriage has no effect on sex at all, then phrases like “disastrous illegitimacy rates” and “fatherhood crisis” are nothing to worry about. The associated rises in delinquency, crime, mortality and other social ills are presumably also figments of our imagination.
@ Bob:
That’s my central tenet?! Thanks for letting me know! Since it’s so central to my point, and I’ve written so much, I’m sure you can show me one place where I’ve said it.
bob wrote “WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT GAY MARRIAGE AFFECTS SOCIETY??” Well, bob, you have a group of people who think the only way to transfer property is via marriage.
@ Other readers: Please, please tell me y’all are finding it as funny as I am that Bob keeps on telling me again and again the very thing I’ve been saying loudly, early and often, from the first sentence of my first post, just as if it were something I was trying to sweep under the carpet. :)
bob wrote “WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT GAY MARRIAGE AFFECTS SOCIETY??” Well, bob, you have a group of people who “chattel” means “unable to vote.”
bob wrote “WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT GAY MARRIAGE AFFECTS SOCIETY??” Well, bob, you have a group of people who think a will cannot be challenged in court if one is married.
SDG: I find it sad.
Steve, gay marriage is more than the crude sexual reductionism of the ‘traditional marriage’ crowd, and it’s more than property rights. As to gay marriage causing changes in sexual behavior…hmmmm…you either didn’t read what you wrote OR you’re trying to disassociate youself from it. The HEADLINE of your blog is REDEFINING MARRIAGE. You’ve been, for 6 long essays, relating the changes gay marriage would make and how gay marriage would REDEFINE MARRIAGE. I’m assuming you wrote the blog for this purpose. To tell us how GAY MARRIAGE would REDEFINE marriage, right? Then you go on and on about this mythical, and wrong, view that no one was having premarital sex because of the social taboos. So you wrote 6 essays on how marriage regulated sex, and people generally DIDN’T have sex before marriage and how gay marriage changes marriage…and yet you deny you said any of this. Remarkable! Truly remarkable. Steve, did you know someone’s hijacked your blog and is writing things in your name??
bob: You don’t need to be angry at SDG because your great-great-great grandfather kept your great-great-great grandmother as property. In fact you could be grateful to him for, as far as you know, he never sold her . . .
Steve, regarding historical rates of premarital sex, check the website I posted to you earlier. And people got married YOUNG in those days but STILL weren’t waiting until marriage to have sex. The social problems you mention are a reflection of the fact we USED to be an agrarian society and are now an urban society. Marriage USED to be embedded in a larger family framework than it is today.
@ Bob—there ARE people who have saved sex for marriage. I know quite a few of them.
Additionally, there are people who have perhaps, engaged in sexual relations prior to marriage - sometimes believing the were taking part in ‘premarital sex’ only to learn it was to become ‘sex-with-no-intention-of-marriage’ due to the actions of the other person. This is quite common.
It is so common, in fact, that very often, the people who have fallen for it - tend to be of the “Well-now-I’m-waiting-for-marriage!” - mindset. (myself and several of friends fall into this category.)
There are still others… who start dating… fall into sexual behavior and then realize their mistake and determine together to be strong again until marriage.
So yes, when you say “almost everyone has sex before marriage” - technically that’s true - but such a statement disregards mistakes that God is (and many humans are) more than willing to forgive, and it disregards the resolve that MANY people, MANY COUPLES put forth once they learn - with no uncertainty… that sex is BEST SAVED FOR MARRIAGE, and that their marriages will be stronger for it.
Finally, you say “I’m uanaware of ANY social stigma attached to men, comparable to ‘promiscuous’ women. I’m sure we can think of any number of names for women who are loose. There are none for men.”
I dunno. I’ve been calling men sluts for years!
We also call them “players”—maybe some men find it to be a compliment—- but rest assured it is not—and most single women avoid “players” like the plague. (once we’re able to identify them.)
bob wrote “The social problems you mention are a reflection of the fact we USED to be an agrarian society and are now an urban society.” I agree that homosexual behavior is an urban phenomenon. It is amazing that no one, in an agrarian society, noticed animals are also gay. I mean how could there be so blind—herding and caring for those animals—that they did not notice rams were attracted to one another? Good thing astute scientists noticed after 1969.
@ Bob: I don’t see that you’ve added anything that I haven’t already effectively responded to, with one exception:
I don’t deny that urbanization, along with the invention of the pill and many other factors, have played roles. That doesn’t obviate my larger point that (a) illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed and (b) social scientists correlate the social ills I mentioned very significantly with the present or absent fathers.
bob said, “I’m uanaware of ANY social stigma attached to men, comparable to ‘promiscuous’ women. I’m sure we can think of any number of names for women who are loose.”
There are, such as playboy, lady killer, womanizer, Cassanova and Don Juan. But your original assertion was that “men NEVER suffered the same stigma associated with premarital sex that women did.” While “promiscuity” can be associated with “premarital sex,” they are hardly one and the same thing. Premarital sex can mean just a single act of intercourse, and it is with such more limited instances that my comment was concerned.
“The ‘Leave it to Beaver’ view of marriage looked good on TV. It never existed in reality.”
So then are you suggesting that this view was presented in that and numerous other TV programs and movies as a fantasy that few if any people could be expected to relate to rather than as a real ideal that perhaps not everyone achieved?
“people have sex outside of marriage. Everyone…repeat…everyone does.”
So are my wife and I some kind of inhuman cosmic aliens? What about the several other couples we know who don’t seem to be included in your definition of “everyone?” And you’re suggesting that our views are based on a warped idea of reality?!
@ Bob:
Oh, and this is funny.
You say “Everyone…repeat…everyone” has premarital sex and so marriage has no effect at all.
According to the article you linked to, “Everyone…repeat…everyone” means 9 people out of 10.
So that means the population of people you dismiss as entirely insignificant—1 in 10—is still 4 or 5 times the percentage of the population that is gay!
By Bob math, then, it would seem that “EVERYONE…repeat…EVERYONE…repeat…EVERYONE” is straight. Thus, same-sex marriage must just be a figment of our imaginations.
Playboy’s a stigma? Hmmm…wonder why they gave a magazine that name? I’m not aware of any women’s magazines with the names commonly associate with ‘loose’ women. As to sex ‘outside’ of marriage…that’s generally PREmarital sex. EXTRAmarital sex is a completely different story. And yes, almost EVERYONE had PREmarital sex. As to “Leave it to Beaver” being a goal, the fact no one practiced it tells us what the goal was worth.
Steve you’re right about the math. So your assertion that almost NO ONE had premarital sex was right even though the figure is 90%, while I’m wrong because I said EVERYONE had premarital sex when the figure was….90%. Gotcha.
bob, your premises are simply flat-out invalid. I can understand your doing everything you can to maintain them, however, since without them your house of cards collapses.
@ Bob: “So your assertion that almost NO ONE had premarital sex was right even though the figure is 90%”
That would be a devastating rejoinder. If I had ever said that “almost NO ONE had premarital sex.”
I suspect I may have written that in the alternate universe where you seem to be reading my posts. The universe where my “central tenet” is that marriage is being redefined by gay “marriage,” and where the idea that heterosexual behavior has been sabotaging marriage for decades is a devastating point I hadn’t thought of, instead of my central tenet from the outset.
Near as I can tell the “Leave it to Beaver” view of marriage seems to be that a male and a female produce children and nurture those children to adulthood. There seems to be a bit of anger, on bob’s part, toward biology.
@Steven Greydanus: Great post. Though at times I felt this was an extension of your last post, the “No” to marriage. After reading the title, I was expecting to read about the personal or societal benefits of marriage (obviously, this wasn’t the case). Basically, I’m a bit confused about what you mean by the “Yes” of marriage.
Btw, I commend you for your patience in attempting to converse with @bob.
bob wrote: “As to ‘Leave it to Beaver’ being a goal, the fact no one practiced it tells us what the goal was worth. “ bob, “Glee” is not real. Or, to cast it in a negative light: “Glee” is far more farcical than “Leave it to Beaver.”
@ Tim: Thanks. You’re right that Part 6 is an extension of Part 5—actually, all the posts are extensions of what originally started as a single post—but what I’m trying to develop in this post, and what I hope to pay off in Part 7, is that the effectiveness of marriage as a social institution is connected with problematizing sex outside of marriage. The coming point in Part 8 being that currently we aren’t doing this, which is why marriage is in such a state.
Oops. I mean, marriage is in such a state because of the gays! After all, I’m told that’s my central tenet. Weird how I keep getting confused about that.
SteveP..your Orwellian view of language is, well, expected for those who follow the Byzantine circular reasoning of homophobes. Anger towards biology? Kind of like saying that those who marched in civil rights marches were angry about skin color.
bob: an appropriate analogy would have been “kind of like saying those who watched television shows about civil rights marches were angry about skin color.” That’s better parallelism. However, the equation of race with what is termed sexual orientation is quite false. +10 points for slipping in Orwellian and Byzantine. -15 points for resorting to homophobe already.
@Steven Greydanus: Thanks for clearing that up and I look forward to your next post.
Bob:
Hmm, I’m thinking that you might want to reevaluate some of your logic. Your main beef seems to be with SDG’s statements that in the past, IN GENERAL society has GENERALLY discouraged sex before marriage. (I will use caps in these responses since it seems to be the thing to do, wink.) This is NOT saying that everyone without a single exception refrained from premarital sex, but that on the whole it was not encouraged. However, you have interpreted SDG’s statements to mean: “NO ONE HAS EVER EVER had sex before marriage in the past,” and and in your fury over what you think is a broad, blanket statement you have responded with the equally broad, blanket statement: “EVERYONE had sex before marriage.” Which you are using to combat an idea that SDG never put forth in the first place. Do you see the problem here?
I actually know many family members and friends who have reserved sex for marriage. I am also planning the same myself. Are you saying that my family, friends, and myself do not exist?
If so, WHERE IS THIS COMMENT THAT YOU’RE READING COMING FROM??? Spooky.
I read the article you shared in one of your above comments but am really not impressed. The data is for people who were born in the 40s-50s, thus, people who grew up during the “sexual revolution” of the 60s-70s. How does this prove your presumed point that at no point in time did people EVER not discourage premarital sex? Whoops, I mean, prove your point that not one person, NEVER EVER, NOT ONCE, IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND ever reserve sex for marriage? It seems to me that SDG has been referring to a more pre-50s era of time, or even farther back presumably. I would have to read his articles in their entirety again.
So “playboy” cannot be possibly be used as a stigma because it’s also the name of a magazine? This is fantastic. I’m sure the creators of Modern Drunkard would be pleased with your logic. (Yup, it exists.) With that in mind, I get the ball rolling to the next wave of de-stigmatizing: my new magazine, Slut Weekly! I’ll make millions.
@ Lea S: Good comments.
FWIW, the logic of my post and of the problematizing of extramarital sex would still hold even if we imagined that 100 percent of the population engaged in nonmarital sex at some point or other. The argument assumes only that nonmarital sex is sufficiently problematized to limit the extent to which nonmarital sex is available (the more the better, obviously) to make marriage an obvious and desirable goal.
For example, imagine that in a culture in which something like Christian morality is ostensibly preached, everyone or nearly everyone engages in more or less covert premarital sex—but the majority of these acts are between engaged persons in the days or weeks prior to the wedding. Or suppose that most people who engage in premarital sex do so only a few times, or limit themselves to only one partner prior to their eventual spouse. Or suppose people do it, but most of them feel guilty or conflicted about it, or even just plain scared of getting caught (or conceiving).
Such states of affairs obviously would not be in keeping with Christian virtue—but they would still be worlds away from Bob’s imaginary universe in which marriage has no effect on people’s behavior. They could still place very significant limits on the availability of sex outside of marriage. The behavior in question might fall short of Christian virtue, but the outcome would converge more closely with Christian practice than is currently the norm, alas, in our culture. Marriage in such a culture would not be completely healthy, but it would be much healthier to that extent than in our present culture.
The article Bob links to, or that article’s central contention that the rate of people who engage in premarital sex has been constant since the 1950s, is almost useless in establishing how available or unavailable, how problematic or non-problematic, nonmarital sex was in the past relative to today, because it gives us only a raw number of people but tells us very little about the extent of their behavior. Insofar as it goes beyond this statistic, it does offer a useful piece of information: People today are marrying later and remaining sexually active outside of marriage for longer. I would also hazard a guess that nonmarital sex is starting younger and involves more partners today than was the case in the past. There are also certainly higher rates of cohabitation and of course higher rates of divorce and remarriage.
All these factors contribute to higher rates of illegitimacy and fatherless households, and contribute to the social problems associated with fatherless household.
Lea….Steve seems to be of the opinion that ‘regulating sex’ was a successful function of marriage. Further, he contends behavior has changed as views of marriage have changed. This is wrong. People, as the DATA shows, have always engaged in premarital sex. That’s my point. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And it’s hardly fury to watch these linguistic lucubrations used to ‘prove’ gay marriage should be prohibited because it’s a ‘redefinition’ of marriage when the characterization of marriage is plainly wrong. And you complain about my data from the 40’s and 50’s. Well, I have data. That’s the point. Where’s yours to say that Steve’s view of marriage ‘regulating’ premarital sex was correct? This is goalpost moving. And ‘playboy’ is hardly the equivalent of ‘slut’. “Modern Drunkard” may be facetious, but few women I know would want to be called ‘slut’.
@ Bob: See above.
Steve brings up some good points. Now we’ve moved beyond the stage of believing there was a time when an idealistic, virgin state reigned supreme, and can deal with the reality of human sexual behavior. Steve is now trying to hedge his bet, saying that, yes, people DO engage in premarital sex which is an offense against Christian virtue, but this is not necessarily harmful. HALLELUJAH! It’s about time this was recognized! He’s right. Our culture today is so different than the 40’s and 50’s it’s hard to isolate ANY particular feature which had an effect on behavior. In engineer-speak, the signal to noise ratio is high. Trying to tease out the effects of sex apart from other factors is probably an exercise in futility. Thus asserting gay marriage has an effect on marriage is an assertion without support. Steve is complaining that marriage has changed. Well, yes. It’s a fluid and plastic institution…always has been. That’s why it makes no sense to exclude gays.
P.S. I do have to agree with Bob that women have taken a disproportionate share of the stigma for socially unsanctioned sexual behavior.
That’s also sadly significantly tied to biology: Females are the ones saddled with the pregnancy, which makes their guilt both more obvious and potentially more burdensome (on their family). Morally, both men and women are equally called to be chaste and equally responsible for their actions (unless coercion of some kind is involved), but socially female virtue commands a higher premium. And biologically women have a higher incentive to avoid risky behavior, which means that a wanton woman is more reckless than a wanton man.
It may be sexist, but there is biological and social truth (warped, but not unrecognizable) in the scandalous rhyme:
@ Bob:
Wait, you’re going to start talking about my points? Since when? Way to change horses in midstream, Bob.
There. Fixed it for you.
Translation: “I finally noticed what SDG has been saying all along.”
Bob,
See SDG’s 3:14 p.m. comment. And I must point out that since he never pretended in the first place that people have NEVER EVER engaged in premarital sex, your main point continues to be superfluous…
“‘Modern Drunkard’ may be facetious, but few women I know would want to be called ‘slut.’”
Not after my new magazine de-stigmatizes the word!
@ Bob: P.S. Now that you’ve embarked on this strange new project of “discussing my points,” perhaps you could go back and show me my “central tenet” in my actual words.
I also look forward to a sentence beginning “Now that we’ve moved beyond studiously ignoring or denying the reality that heterosexuals have been redefining marriage for decades before gay marriage came on the scene…”
P.P.S. Don’t mind me, @ Bob. I’m not laughing AT you. I’m laughing NEAR you. :)
bob attempts to pull the “same as” scam: pre-martial copulation is the same as “gay marriage.” bob, why do you suppose the so-called study did not ask if the copulation occurred during courtship? Why do you suppose the study did not ask how many sexual partners people had?
@ SteveP: In fairness, we don’t know what the study did or didn’t ask. We only know what the news story reported.
bob wrote “Our culture today is so different than the 40’s and 50’s it’s hard to isolate ANY particular feature which had an effect on behavior . . . Trying to tease out the effects of sex apart from other factors is probably an exercise in futility.” That’s right – we cannot know anything! In 1941 women would put their finger in a man’s ear and-lo and behold!—a baby nine months later! Things have changed soooooo much!
SDG: The study: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2007/01/29/PRH-Vol-122-Finer.pdf
@ SteveP: Ah, so the study’s author is only hashing through existing data from surveys conducted from 1982 to 2002. It isn’t even a question of what questions he asked then, but what was available to him or what he chose to measure.
And you’re right, it’s exceptionally useless and doesn’t at all support the agenda conclusion advocated by the author. It seems interested only in one statistic, the loss of virginity before marriage, and one political conclusion: We need more sex ed and more contraception. Nice.
Yikes. Bob, with all due respect (and please understand this is coming from someone who is unconvinced that civil gay marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage), you are not helping your own cause. You either get seriously jacked up on egging people on and watching them take the bait, or your self awareness is so low that you simply have no idea how you come across to others. I’m not trying to criticize, but I am admittedly tired of having to sift through your takeovers of the comments in order to get to the actual discussion of the article. I also expect this to only fan the flames further, so this will be my last post about it, but if you want to help your cause you will take some breaths before you start posting again.
SDG, I am looking forward to seeing how you propose to renew marriage’s “raison d’etre.” It seems to me that married, monogamous people need to show that happiness and spiritual growth comes from the commmitment surrounding the marriage and sexual responsibility through their actions and lifestyles. If more people were focused on their own marriage and family we wouldn’t have to spin wheels about or try to control the rest of the world.
@ Richard:
Yikes! Do I have to have as ambitious a program as that? I have some obvious thoughts toward a better world, and I think I’ve got a decent handle on the nature of our problem and the case we need to make, but I’m not sure I have any penetrating insights into how to renew anything, other than Jesus’ program of being salt and light, and trying to help people see the bigger picture.
leaving post for updates
So much to address, so little time.
Bob,
Let’s put Steves’ thoughts into small little sound bites so you can understand them more easily.
1. Marriage is a societal institution meant to protect woman and children. It is there to insure that woman are not left alone to raise children that come from the sexual act, whether the couple is married or not. Fatherless children are a burden on society in that someone has to pay for the child’s food, clothing, medical, schooling etc. If the single mother works and pays for it herself, then society must pay by watching her children while she works. If she doesn’t work then society ends up paying for the child’s needs. This is not the only reason for marriage, (in a religious context the meaning is much deeper), but it is the main reason from a secular point of view. STD’s are another factor.
2. “THE PAST” does not mean 40 or 50 years ago. It means “Since the beginning”. As in thousands upon thousands of years ago. Even when polygamy was accepted, it still meant that there was a bread winner and a caregiver, which meant that the children were not a societal burden.
3. Of course there has always been pre marital, as well as extra marital sex. The question is not “What was there”, but “What is best?” Clearly, what is best for society is everyone taking care of themselves and not relying on governments to take care of them. The family unit is the foundation of societies. Even in gay marriages, the concept is two people uniting and taking care of themselves and any children they would adopt by themselves.
4. Gay marriage is not the only or the greatest threat to marriage. It is simply the newest and the one that is tipping the scales, not only to eroding marriage, but to redefining it. This series is not about protesting Gay Marriage, but about protecting marriage as it is now, because that is what is best for society. That means that the introduction of children should be done only in the context of marriage, that once married, couples should remain faithful and that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman since it’s whole purpose is to protect “woman” and “children”.
5. While the cow analogy is apropos, it is more important to understand how the two parties view sex and marriage. Men use “love” to get sex, and woman use “sex” to get love. Women are the vulnerable parties in sexual relationships (whether sans marriage or in marriage). When a woman gives her body away, hoping for love and commitment in return, she places herself at the mercy of her sexual partner. Many men will “promise” to “take care of her” but leave when the relationship is complicated by pregnancies, leaving the woman alone and forced with a choice between single parenthood, adoption or abortion. Again, this affects society. Only when woman insist on the commitment before the sex, is she protected from abandonment. Before you point out the instances where she is abandoned after marriage, realize that I am talking about the “norm” and not the “exception”. Eroding this safeguard, by eroding the institution itself, leaves her with no protection, placing the burden back on society. If she keeps the child we’re back to square one and society must pay for the couples indiscretion or she aborts which robs society of it’s most valuable asset…future generations.
6. Gay marriage is just one of many assaults on marriage, not the only or even the most significant. It is however the one that is changing the actual definition of what marriage is and what it is meant to do.
7. When Steve “agreed” with you, it was not an about face. Steve, as all of us, is interested in the TRUTH, wherever it can be found. The objective Truth, the existence of which, is something else that we probably disagree on. However, when you accept the reality of Objective Truth, then you are willing to acknowledge it no matter where it is found, even if it is found in the “enemies” camp. Truth is truth. If you say something that is objectively “true”, then Steve or I or anyone seeking said Truth, is going to acknowledge it. I would hope that you are able to do the same, as that is what grown ups do when conversing. They give points where points are due and argue points when they do not represent the Truth. You’re statement that women bear the brunt of the burden was True, even if you’re other statements were not. Steve is not trying to attack you, but your “ideas” when they are wrong. If they are “right” he will say so. You could learn much from this attitude. Women do bear the brunt of child rearing….True. Marriage is a useless institution…false. Not because you said so, or because Steve said so, but because it is the Truth.
MK well, your argument seems to be that, if you bleat it a thousand times, it’ll automatically become true. Sorry, I’m unaware of any feature of rational discussion where that’s true. Marriage “protects” women? Uh, how? Who says? You inventing this out of wholecloth or just hoping to slide this one by? There are laws regarding paternal responsibilities that have nothing to do with whether a child’s father is married to its mother. So point 1 is irrelevant. And, it seems, the ‘past’ has an Alice in Wonderland feature. It means exactly what you say it does but does not encompass the last 50 years or so. A remarkable, time machine based view of the past! And gay couples often have TWO breadwinners, so that’s an argument FOR gay marriage. And your acceptance of polygamy seems to throw the ‘traditional’ view of marriage out the door. There’s NO proof gay couples can’t fend for themselves, provide for themselves etc. So point 3 is wide of the mark. Regarding point 4, if you object to redefining marriage then get those of us who are STRAIGHT to defend it. Don’t discriminate against a group that has always been pilloried to do the heavy lifting for you! And this garbage about men using love to get sex is sexist. I’m a man and have NEVER done this. Yep, some men do this. But to categorize ALL men like this is shoddy thinking.
Steve Grey…you’re kind of missing the point. You say it’s a rehash of data? By all means, you’re completely FREE to post your own data. Uh….where is it?
bob wrote: “There are laws regarding paternal responsibilities that have nothing to do with whether a child’s father is married to its mother.” Oh dear! Were you aware there are legal ramifications to using your body’s reproductive capacity? Are you going to shout at us that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction? Since marriage is just a contract, why is there such a thing as alimony? Likewise, why are there pre-nups? By the way, it is well known that males are sexist but are never subject to sexism—you may want to apologize.
SteveP, marriage is what the people involved THINK it is since there are relatively few restrictions on how a marriage is conducted. There are NO legal requirements about sex in marriage. Do you think contracts DON’T have financial penalties? Really? Alimony has NOTHING to do with sex, amazingly enough. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, trying to couple sex to every imagined feature of marriage THEN admitting they have nothing to do with sex.
bob: good pun: “couple sex!” So, if I understand you correctly, people are so bad at negotiating contracts that alimony is left to after the breakage rather than a term of the contract. True?
SteveP, you are someone who thinks that marriage is something in particular, but you’re arguing with someone who thinks it’s anything in general. Not only that, but unlike them you are able to recognize a rule and see that the exceptions prove the rule rather than break it. I suggest that you really cannot debate this person because there is no First Principle - something that cannot be proved but only perceived or accepted - that you both agree on, which could form the basis for an argument.
SteveP you give yourself credit for an assumed cleverness you don’t have. No, alimony is boilerplate. There are hundreds of millions of marriages. Do you think every single one has to be negotiated?
Kevin Rahe you have made a fine point and given advice to be followed. I just have one more question for bob—bob, Bob’s your uncle?
@ Bob: Your participation in this combox has been invaluable. Thanks, friend.
Steven, I would agree with you. So often proponents of same-sex “marriage” suggest that it will decrease promiscuity and increase fidelity and monogamy among those who experience same-sex attractions. Now I can just point them to bob’s arguments - if marriage doesn’t do those things for those attracted to the opposite sex, how can it be expected to do them for those attracted to the same sex?
Marriage does nothing about PREmarital sex. Certainly it promotes fidelity. It has NOTHING to do with the gender of the spouses. Kevin, I’ve asked you, Steve Greydanus and others for proof of your assertions that marriage restricted premarital sexual relations. Where’s the proof? Where’s the proof gay marriage will have an effect on straight marriage? You guys make LOTS of assertions. NO proof at all.
@ Bob: Where is your proof for your first sentence? The study you referenced doesn’t support this, as I already established. Your study examines only the single data point of lost virginity—it doesn’t even pretend to analyze the much larger and more important question you claim it does. In fact, insofar as the study admits that people are delaying marriage longer and engaging in premarital sex over a longer period of time (and probably with more partners, and starting earlier) it points to the opposite conclusion.
You don’t think that skyrocketing illegitimacy establishes anything about increasing extramarital sex? You don’t think that increasing absentee fathers is anything to worry about? You don’t think the sociology on the social maladies correlating with absent fathers is anything to worry about?
Why am I even asking this? I’ve said it all before, and you didn’t answer me then. What makes me think you’ll answer me now? We’re going in circles: I answer you and cross-examine you, you ignore me and say whatever the hell you feel like. I need to go back to just laughing at you, and stop pretending that you can be induced to have a conversation.
SDG: I agree. bob, may God’s grace lead you to fullness of life.
Lost virginity outside of marriage would, by definition, mean premarital sex. So the existence of marriage does not ‘problematize’ sex outside marriage since almost everyone engages in premarital sex. Thus sex and marriage are independent. No, premarital sex has nothing to do with illegitimacy. The US, with its excessive religiousity, lack of access to birth control, etc, has one of the highest illegitimate birth rates in the western world. That seems to indicate religion is not successful at regulating EITHER sex OR illegitimacy. And I keep answering. You just don’t like the answers. The fact is the US is more religious than almost any developed country. The fact is its social policy is a disaster. It has nothing to do with gay marriage at all. It has ALOT to do with religion.
I am Bob.
Behavior regarding marriage remains completely unchanged, yet at the very same time marriage is a fluid and plastic institution that is always changing. Nine-tenths of Americans starting in the mid-1950s lost their virginity before marriage, therefore marriage has no effect at all on premarital sex. Where is SDG’s proof all his claims he never made, such as that at one time there was this mythical “Leave it to Beaver” view of marriage where 2 virgins get married and that’s pretty much the way it’s always been, and almost NO ONE had premarital sex?
Now that SDG has finally moved beyond the stage of believing things he never said and has finally acknowledged what he was saying all along, let’s consider his central tenet that same-sex marriage is redefining marriage and changing the way people behave—completely ignoring how STRAIGHTS have been redefining marriage for decades! Ha! Got him there!
@ Bob: Hey, here’s what I’m going to do: Any time you say something that I’ve already rebutted, I’m going to simply refer back to the time stamp of the post that rebuts it. It will be less effort than repeating everything over and over. For example:
“Lost virginity outside of marriage would, by definition, mean premarital sex. So the existence of marriage does not ‘problematize’ sex outside marriage since almost everyone engages in premarital sex. Thus sex and marriage are independent.” [Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 2:14 PM (EST)] Hey, that was easy!
“No, premarital sex has nothing to do with illegitimacy.” Well. Um. Here’s a ... new thought. Premarital sex has ... nothing to do with illegitimacy. Illegitimacy and premarital sex: not related. So. That would mean that ... all these additional illegitimate babies are ... coming from ....... where, now? A sinister spike in the stork population, perhaps?
“The US, with its excessive religiousity, lack of access to birth control, etc, has one of the highest illegitimate birth rates in the western world. That seems to indicate religion is not successful at regulating EITHER sex OR illegitimacy.” So ... the reason illegitimacy rates were so much lower 50, 60, 70 years ago was .... less religion back then? More birth control? Help me out, Bob.
bob said, “Kevin, I’ve asked you, Steve Greydanus and others for proof of your assertions that marriage restricted premarital sexual relations. Where’s the proof?”
The principles we live by cannot always be empirically proven, nor do they have to be. In fact, if they were proven they wouldn’t be principles at all but merely facts. I believe that people generally live up to what they perceive to be others’ expectations of them. If I didn’t believe that, I couldn’t presume to teach my children anything at all. Perhaps you could prove me wrong by proving that love is not lust.
Steve, perhaps it’s too complicated for you to realize that premarital sex often involves contraception. THAT is why premarital sex and illegitimacy are not related. Irresponsibility and illegitimacy ARE related but there’s NO relationship with premarital sex at all. Contraception. That is the factor that breaks the causal connection. The reason illegitimacy was less common 50 years ago was that people got married when they got pregnant. AND contraception WAS available even then. So far, not much rebuttal.
Kevin, PRINCIPLES don’t have to be empirically proven, but claims to their effectiveness certainly DO. The claim that gay marriage will lead to a breakdown of marriage is unsupportable. The claim that contraception leads to a breakdown of marriage is unsupportable. If we want to live by principles, let them BE principles and not MYTHS
@ Bob: In other words, the fertility rate from premarital sex today is much lower than in the past—yet the illegitimacy rate today is vastly higher. More babies with lower fertility. But this doesn’t mean more premarital sex is going on today. Nosir!
Look. You’ve essentially admitted that if people had premarital sex 50, 60, 70 years ago, they were a) far more likely to get pregnant sooner, and b) far more likely to get married if they did. These two facts alone establish that a lot less premarital sex was going on back then—and your own study backs up this conclusion (since it establishes that people today are engaging in premarital sex over a longer period of time, and it’s reasonable to suppose with more partners, etc.). Thanks for clearing that up.
Also, why were people back then inclined to get married if a pregnancy occurred? Because premarital sex (and illegitimacy) was problematized. The very behavior you point out demonstrates both the practical reality of the problematization of premarital sex and illegitimacy and its effectiveness in reducing illegitimacy, in part by inducing those who conceived out of wedlock to marry (and of course preventing partners who married from conceiving additional children via premarital sex). QED.
Also, there is a well-established psychological principle called risk compensation that says, for example, that people who a) have ready access to contraception and b) have no particular expectation of marrying the person even if a pregnancy occurs are more likely to engage in premarital sex with someone regardless of whether or not they would want to marry them than people who expect that a pregnancy will mean wedding bells. So there too the problematization of premarital sex, and the expectation that a pregnancy means wedding bells, will tend to limit willingness to engage in premarital sex to partners one might actually be willing to marry.
Finally, because of all these factors, people in the past were culturally and psychologically readier to make a go of marriage, as evidenced by much lower rates of divorce.
Bob,
Losing the condescending tone would do wonders in furthering discussion. Do you have any idea how much like a petulant teenager you sound. You have some points, I’ll be happy to address them. That’s called “conversation”.
First, I never meant to imply that the last 50 or 60 years are not “part” of the past. It is however, in the last 50 or 60 years that marriage has taken a turn for the worst. So we look at what went before, then compare it to what happened since, 1962, and discern which changes were for the better and which were for the worse.
Again, it is a combination of circumstances that have brought us to this point. There are many, many, many things that changed in the 60’s that affected marriage. Homosexuality is only one of them. (Please don’t tell me that homosexuality has always been with us, I get that, but an entire society sanctioning gay marriage is a novel idea and that is what I mean). Contraception has given us the false idea that we can now have sex outside of marriage without any consequences. That is a lie. If it were true we would not have 40% of children being born in this country last year to single mothers. If it were true, we would not have a million and a half abortions in this country every year. It is the lie of contraception that has weakened the idea that children should be created within the context of marriage and nowhere else. Abortion has changed our understanding of human life. We now look at the value of new life based on our perceptions rather than the objective reality of the child itself. A child in the womb of a mother who does not want it, becomes valueless, while a child in the womb of a mother who does want it, is seen as valuable. The reality is that ALL human life is valuable, and it doesn’t matter one iota what our “feelings” are. This is what I mean by Objective Truth. Human beings are intrinsically valuable…meaning they are valuable in ALL circumstances at ALL times and nothing, absolutely nothing, can devalue them. But with the advent of abortion and contraception, we have ceased looking at human life as intrinsically valuable, and instead pretend that a person’s life is given value by the people perceiving that life. This is bass-ackwards. We recognize a things value, because it IS valuable. It is not valuable because we say so. We say so, because it IS valuable.
If you do not speak French it is almost impossible to understand what a Frenchman is saying. Since you have no real idea of what a holy or sanctified union is, and no concept of what human life is or what it’s value is because you have no belief in the God who created that life, you cannot understand our arguments anymore than you could understand the Frenchmen. We explain it to you and you either get red faced with anger and defensiveness or you get the glazed look that says “Non parle tu Francais”. There are deeper meanings why children and marriage are necessarily between one man and one woman, but I sense that they would be gibberish to you.
Marriage “protects” women?
Yes, of course it does. You seem to think marriage was meant as something else in the distant past. Tell me what that was. It certainly wasn’t undying love as most marriages were arranged. Yes marriage protected women in the past. It has also in the past appeared to degrade them, but that is only because we are looking at it with 21st century eyes. When a society views woman as a commodity, something which is thankfully changing, then it is actually in her best interest to be owned. If she is not, she has no way to take care of herself. 3,000 years ago, if a woman was not married she starved or turned to prostitution. Was this wrong? Yes, from our viewpoint. But given the choices a woman had back then, it was the better of the two. Marriage meant security, food, clothing, and protection from other men. Today we no longer view our woman as commodities (although we often treat them as property ). Now we recognize woman as equal to men (note that the Catholic Church has done this from the beginning). But equal or not, when children enter the picture someone must take care of them, and someone must provide for them. The system that works the best is that one parent nurtures and stays with the children, while another goes out and provides for them. Which brings us to your point about homosexuals being able to do just that.
Yes, two men can care for a child. No one is questioning that. Just as Steve said, a mother and widowed grandmother can do the same. So from that aspect and that aspect alone, the child is in good, safe hands. But that is not the same as a marriage. A marriage also involves a completing of the human race. Men and women are not opposites of each other, but compliments. Together, men and women, make up the “whole” of mankind. Only when they are together, as a pair, as a set, do we see all of humanity. Two men are not compliments of each other. They are lacking the other “part” that makes up humanity…they are lacking the female counterpart…the compliment. Therefore, their “union” cannot be viewed as anything but “lacking” in a philosophical sense. Can they love each other? Of course. They are called by God Himself to love each other, but can they love each other in the erotic sense? Not honestly, as they are not compliments of each other, but the same as each other. (Right about now that defensiveness or glazed look is taking over, I’m sure…but I’m not really trying to “convince” you so much as “explain” our thought processes, so keep the glaze, lose the anger)...Can two men have sex? yes. Can two men raise a child? Yes. But anatomically, philosophically and theologically, it is impossible for them to “marry” one another. Just as it is impossible for brothers to marry each other or mothers to marry their sons. The “marriage” is not legitimate. It is a lie.
There are laws regarding paternal responsibilities that have nothing to do with whether a child’s father is married to its mother. So point 1 is irrelevant.
And as Steve and I have pointed out, it is not just about those responsibilities. But those responsibilities are important from a societal view. Anyone can “take care” of children, but that is not what a marriage is. It is one of the reasons that marriage began, yes. But laws “requiring” the fathers of children outside of marriage to provide for them are an answer to the problem of those men not marrying the women to begin with. These laws came after the sanctity of marriage began to erode. They are not the ideal. A child does not care about a paycheck. If all being a father is is providing cash, then it doesn’t make any difference from the child’s point of view where that paycheck comes from. A father will also provide more than that. He will pass on his beliefs, and values…give the child security simply by “being present...teach the child to throw a ball, drive, how to treat woman, how to be a man…a paycheck will not do that.
Men and women are different, no matter how much the feminist movement tried to say they aren’t. They have different things to give to their children, different ways of looking at the world. How can a woman teach her son to BE a man? How can a man teach his daughter to BE a woman? Only two parents of the opposite sex can teach their children about the totality of what it means to be human.
And your acceptance of polygamy seems to throw the ‘traditional’ view of marriage out the door.
Huh??? Where did I condone polygamy? All I said was that, even in that disordered arrangement, the focus was on the man “providing”. I am in no way in favor of polygamy!
There’s NO proof gay couples can’t fend for themselves, provide for themselves etc.
Not only is there not proof, there is no such assertion. Of course they can fend for themselves, provide for themselves, etc. Where on earth are you getting that they can’t? I’m not even asserting that they can’t provide for children. I AM asserting, that given an entire half of humanity is left out of the homosexual picture, children will not get the “whole” picture from a homosexual couple. Even in the animal kingdom, we see that it takes two animals of the opposite sex to raise the offspring. Yeah, yeah, I know all about the aberrant homosexual penguins and bonobo chimps…We’re not talking about social/sexual interaction, we are talking about raising young. There will always be exceptions, but we are discussing “norms”. That must be a given in these arguments. And of course there are animals that ejaculate and move on…again, that is not the point. The point is, that in most situations, the female and male play different roles in child rearing, and both parties have important, often integral, roles to play in teaching the young what it means to be a “robin” or a “dolphin” or a “donkey”. Even if that means teaching them that the “male” plays a smaller role. In humans, men and women have EQUAL albeit DIFFERENT roles to play.
Lastly, you state that you don’t use the promise of love to get sex and that that men in general do not do this. That’s because you are a man. Women will tell you that men, especially very young or very immature men, will woo women, take the sex as long as it is “easy” and bolt once the situation becomes complicated (ie the mention of marriage or children, shared income or responsibilities). If this were not true, 40% of mothers would not be single and fending for themselves. To say otherwise is to deny that almost half of children in this country live in fatherless homes. Why is that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301628.html
Because premarital sex (and illegitimacy) was problematized.
The crowd cheers.
bob said, “PRINCIPLES don’t have to be empirically proven, but claims to their effectiveness certainly DO”
I suggest that if people adhere to the principle of avoiding sex outside of marriage that it will be tremendously effective at combating the problem of illegitimacy (something that contraceptives cannot do). And if those who are married adhere to the principle of committing to their spouse for life and accepting that they cannot predict when, whether or how many children they might conceive, that it will be tremendously effective at strengthening marriage in general and exposing the silliness of aberrations like the suggestion of same-sex “marriage.”
Er, bob:
“Steve, perhaps it’s too complicated for you to realize that premarital sex often involves contraception. THAT is why premarital sex and illegitimacy are not related. Irresponsibility and illegitimacy ARE related but there’s NO relationship with premarital sex at all.”
Merriam-Webster: “Illegitimate: 1. not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically: born of parents not married to each other.” Your own logic seems to be leaping over normal, everyday logic. SET THE BRAKES!
If what you say about illegitimacy is true, then the following is true too: going out into the sun often involves sunscreen. The failure to apply sunscreen is the ONLY factor in getting sunburns and the sun is not related to this in any way, shape, or form. Sunburn and irresponsibility are thus related, but sunburn has NO relationship with the sun at all. AT. ALL.
Lea it’s a simple matter of mechanics. If you prevent sperm from reaching the egg no conception takes place. Contraception does that. Thus no illegitimacy. Didn’t your parents explain this to you?
Kevin, such an idea is ridiculous on its face. Virtually no one is a virgin when married. There is nothing wrong with premarital sex. Where do you get the idea premarital sex has detrimental effects on society? And contraception WITHIN marriage can also STRENGTHEN marriage, regardless of what Paul VI said
MK, perhaps you’re right about the tone, though there are beams in the eyes a few folks in this discussion.
Your contention that, in the last 50 years or so marriage has taken a turn for the worse staggers the imagination! Howso? By what measure? Such a blanket statement, offered without proof, is nothing more than special pleading.
And yes, we CAN have premarital sex without consequences. I know; I’ve done it. Using proper precautions, I’ve enjoyed it, as has my partner. Your obsession with some imagined danger smacks of desperation. The issue of illegitimacy is a problem for RELIGION, not for CONTRACEPTION. Problems of illegitimacy show up in the US in terms of poverty and crime. Poor people have babies out of wedlock. The wealthier use contraception. There’s little evidence the rich wait until marriage to have sex. More religious US states have higher teen birthrates than less religious ones (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126780035) Abortion, unfortunately, is practiced as a form of birth control. And married women have abortions! Your logic collapses when you say that contraception has weakened values since MANY MILLIONS of people practice contraception and have high moral values. Your argument is circular. And in this country, the most religious on earth, we have the highest murder rates, the highest incarceration rates, etc. Religion makes the problem worse, not better, by setting imaginary and useless standards like ‘contraception and premarital sex are wrong.’ Religion is a culture of death, so to speak.
You may be right, perhaps I can’t conceive of a holy union, which is a reason why your view doesn’t apply to me and you should keep it to yourself. There’s no reason to penalize gays because they don’t have your ‘sanctified’ view of marriage. Gays can love each other as deeply as any other couple and your crabbed view of what constitutes ‘humanity’ is useless in this context. It’s quite arbitrary and based on nothing but your own views.
This country, ironically enough, hates Darwin but has coupled social Darwinism to social policy. We are an exceptionally punitive, religious society, with the world’s highest incarceration rates, the death penalty, etc. THOSE speak to social values that destroy the human person, NOT contraception. And THOSE values are rooted in American religion
Steven it was your contention that premarital sex was rare in the past because it was ‘problematized’. You made that statement without proof and it was wrong. Illegitimacy is higher today mostly among the poor. The rich use contraception because they have been given the education the poor lack. And teen births tend to be higher among the more religious states in the US. So religion is a block to effective social responsibility.
And you’ve confused premarital sex with the RATE of premarital sex. It’s your contention that premarital sex was rare. Now you admit it wasn’t but that people got married young. Yes, that can convert premarital sex into marital sex. But it doesn’t do much for your view that it was rare.
ILLEGITIMACY was problematized, but premarital sex (PMS for brevity) wasn’t, since so many people were doing it. Talking about it was taboo. But given the fact the PERCENTAGE of people having PMS hasn’t changed, it was hardly problematized. Talking about it was. But the ACT was not. One of the reasons people delay marriage today is BECAUSE they can have sex without children.
You might read this transcript from NPR about the nature of religious belief and its effects on families, children and sex: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126780035
More religious states hate premarital sex but don’t mind early marriages even though these often lead to disaster. So kids get married to have sex, then get divorced. Because of religion. In more liberal states, kids have sex but use contraception. They marry later, and have more stable families. Not exactly an advertisement for religion!
Your statement about risk compensation is incoherent. What’s wrong with premarital sex? You say it has bad effects. Proof? I’ve done it and enjoyed it. I’m still alive and haven’t killed or robbed anyone lately!
And your statement about the lower rates of divorce is precious! Quite hysterical actually! Have you forgotten that divorce was illegal in many states until fairly recently? In my home state of PA, we were the last to go to no fault divorce and that was in the 70’s!
bob said, “If you prevent sperm from reaching the egg no conception takes place. Contraception does that. Thus no illegitimacy.”
I find it amazing that someone who can suggest that others are so naive about the reality of people’s adherence to social standards can be so utterly ignorant of the reality that would shatter their own perceptions. While artificial contraception can have some effect on the likelihood that pregnancy will result from a given act of intercourse, it cannot change the basic fact that engaging in such an act may result in pregnancy. This is plainly clear from statistics that show that around 12% of women procuring abortions report having used artificial contraception perfectly in the month before they became pregnant. And if it has any effect on behavior vs. what people would do if they had no “protection” whatsoever, then whatever isolated benefits it might provide are easily wiped out by its negative effects.
“Virtually no one is a virgin when married.”
Unless I personally know practically everyone who got married in the last 10 years who was a virgin at the time, then that statement is flatly false.
“There is nothing wrong with premarital sex. Where do you get the idea premarital sex has detrimental effects on society?”
If by “premarital sex” you mean sex only between couples who will eventually be married to each other, and if by “nothing wrong” you mean that premarital sex will have no effect on the experience of their wedding day as marking a monumental change in their relationship with each other, their status and the course of their lives, then I would agree with you. I think, however, that this would be an unrealistic expectation.
“And contraception WITHIN marriage can also STRENGTHEN marriage”
In isolated cases, perhaps, but who determines when it’s appropriate and for whom? As G.K. Chesterton said, “The difficulty is simply this: that if it comes to claiming exceptional treatment, the very people who will claim it will be those who least deserve it. The people who are quite convinced they are superior are the very inferior people; the men who really think themselves extraordinary are the most ordinary rotters on earth.”
Lea it’s a simple matter of mechanics. If you prevent sperm from reaching the egg no conception takes place. Contraception does that. Thus no illegitimacy. Didn’t your parents explain this to you?
4 out of ten children born to unwed mothers.
Half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1
Women who refrained from having sex? 0 pregnancies.
yeah, no correlation at all. Seriously?
I suppose a woman could wear an I.U.D, a diaphram, take the pill, insist on a condom AND a use a spermicide…that might protect them from pregnancy…lol, you guys kill me. It never occurs to you to change your behavior. Instead you insist on changing the consequences or changing the expectations. To paraphrase Chesterton, men rarely disagree on what constitutes evil but they often disagree on which evils they will accept. Even the term “Birth Control” is ridiculous. Man never has nor never will, be able to “control” nature. Curb it in small doses, but “control” it? Not gonna happen. On the other hand, simply giving into Nature makes you a slave of nature. What starts out as the “right” to have pre marital sex under the guise of “doing what is natural” soon turns into addiction. You are not truly free to have sex unless you are free not to have sex. Eventually, nature wins out and you find that you cannot live without sex. You’ve proven this by your insistence that EVERYONE has sex before marriage. It’s as if the idea of virginity “does not compute”. You can’t even conceive it.
I have always found it odd that your side finds celibacy abhorrent, bizarre, unnatural, but men dressing up like women, having sex with each other, riding on floats having faux sex in front of God and everyone is perfectly natural. Committing to one woman before having sex is old fashioned, self righteous and downright weird…but friends with benefits, pornography, abortion and birth control are all moral actions. Crazy talk.
“It feels good” is rarely a good reason to make a moral decision.
And contraception WITHIN marriage can also STRENGTHEN marriage, regardless of what Paul VI said
reaaaaaallly? Now who’s makin’ stuff up? Source please.
Kevin, uh yea, it can. So what? Contraception prevents it. And many of those women who have abortions are married, so sex within marriage doesn’t prevent mistakes either! And I’ve already posted the reference showing that 90% of people do not wait until marriage to have sex. Reader’s Digest anecdotes are a poor substitute for evidence. ANd, again, you haven’t shown ANY effects at all from premarital sex. None. Not a single one. Care to try another swing?. As to contraception, uh…the people who practice it. Hundreds of millions have. You folks who are contraception obsessed seem unaware that almost all married couples practice contraception. They’re not having any problems, sorry!
Ah. Half of all women report they used contraception. IOW we don’t know if they used it on THAT occasion, do we? Funny that THIS country, so religious, so pious, has this problem where OTHER countries where they DO teach about contraception don’t. Almost seems like cause and effect. Probabaly has something to do with ‘problematizing’ sex since, if you tell yourself you won’t HAVE sex, then you DO while not using contraception, then it’s not a problem, right? And WHY should I change behavior? Sex is fun! It’s GOOD. It’s pleasurable and nice. There’s absolutely NO reason to forgo premarital sex. And your obsesson with sex turning into addiction is kind of pathetic. I’m not sure who’s been pumping your head with this nonsense but it’s very sad. As to celibacy, I don’t, unlike you, spend alot of time worrying about what other people are doing in their bedrooms. I’m a volunteer on an ambulance where I help to save lives. I am a volunteer with the Coast Guard. I have plenty to worry about when I’m doing CPR or suctioning a hemorraging wound, or communicating with a Coast Guard vessel. Thinking about other people’s sex lives is useless.
Bob,
Your contention that, in the last 50 years or so marriage has taken a turn for the worse staggers the imagination! Howso? By what measure? Such a blanket statement, offered without proof, is nothing more than special pleading.
I don’t understand how you can keep saying that we are giving no proof. I’ve repeatedly thrown out (and sourced) the statistic that 40% of babies were born to unwed mothers in 2010. I have just shown that over half of women having abortions reported using birth control when they got pregnant. Steve has shown that because of societal pressure, those in the past who did get pregnant, got married. The divorce rate is just shy of 50%. More young people are cohabitating than marrying. Any one of those would be proof enough, but put them all together and you see that it is an epidemic. Marriage is in trouble because marriage is not valued. That devaluation has led to fatherless homes. Contraception has given the false impression that you can have sex outside of marriage without consequences.
YOU’VE had sex and not ended up pregnant. That does not a statistic make. You’ve been careful and you’ve been lucky. That’s like saying that if you are one of those lucky people that doesn’t easily gain weight you can eat all the cake you want without getting fat. An entire chocolate cake a day, and you aren’t fat, therefore everyone should be able to gorge.
When you take the fifty million aborted children since 1973(half of whose mothers were using birth control), add that to the three million that are living with someone other than either parent and the 17,250,000 that live with unwed mothers and I find it hard to believe that you can’t see that premarital sex is detrimental to society. As you said, you may not like that answer, but thems the facts. I don’t even know the statistics (but I could find them) of how many women and children live in the welfare state simply because they are not married. (No, I didn’t say ONLY unwed mothers are on welfare…I’m saying that they make up a goodly portion of welfare recipients and the reason is precisely that they are not married).
It is not good for society to encourage sex outside of marriage. That is a fact.
Given that that is true, it stands to reason that marriage is a good thing. That society should protect marriage. It should discourage any and all attempts to demean it’s value. Eliminating marriage is societal suicide. Look at the countries that have done this. Most of them are not at replacement levels. They are contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence. If not for immigration, America would be among them.
Marriage promotes stability, safe environments for children, reduces the burden on government, cuts down on crime (children in broken or one parent homes have more drug and alcohol abuse and higher crime rates), and adds to economic growth (children require “stuff”, plus they grow up to be consumers).
By the way, thanks for acknowledging that “tone” can make or break a conversation. We are attacking ideas, not each other. That can make all the difference between swapping snarky remarks or actually learning from each other.
Bob,
Can I ask you something? What is your definition of marriage? Of Fatherhood? Of Motherhood?
As to contraception, uh…the people who practice it. Hundreds of millions have. You folks who are contraception obsessed seem unaware that almost all married couples practice contraception. They’re not having any problems, sorry!
Say what???
Married women find themselves in unwanted pregnancies with great frequency. Difference is they either abort or keep their child, but then the baby isn’t illegitimate.
We seem to be confusing causes here:
1. Premarital sex leads to unwanted pregnancies and if the child is not aborted, it is considered illegitimate.
2. Contraception gives everyone, married and unmarried alike, a false sense of security…that using contraception is a guarantee that sex will not result in pregnancy. That is a lie. It can and does result in pregnancy. Sometimes the pregnant woman is married sometimes she is not.
3. Contraception is used in premarital sex, which can result in unwanted pregnancies due to that false sense of security, ending in children born to unwed mothers.
Conclusion: Contraception is harmful in both married and unmarried partners. It is more harmful in unmarried partners as if the child is not aborted, it is more likely to be raised by a single parent. It is harmful in a marriage because the child risks being aborted as the parents have already decided (it’s why they were using contraception in the first place) that they do not want a child. How is any of this good?
The only benefit from premarital sex or contraception is the selfish and irresponsible resulting physical pleasure. That’s it. There is no other benefit. It feels good. Period. And I find it sad that millions of people kill their unborn children, raise children in less than perfect circumstances, place a burden on all of society because “it feels good”...phooey.
MK, good points. And yet you attribute these problems to…contraception. Amazing. AMerica went from being an agrarian society to an industrial urban society to a post industrial society and you think….contraception…is responsible for these problems. You fail to note out of wedlock births are most common among the poor. It’s all contraception, you see. If this were true, we’d expect to see out of wedlock births common among those who are most educated since they use contraception the most. And those who report they use contraception? RELIGION causes people to be uneducated about contraception. And they have more babies. Societies where there is strong social support for children…that is, those that are LESS religious…have less of a problem with crime and poverty than pro-life, God fearing America does.
MK…marriage is a state of commitment and fidelity entered into by 2 people who love each other. Parenthood..regardless of father or motherhood…is loving and raising one’s children to be good people
Bob,
Your contention that, in the last 50 years or so marriage has taken a turn for the worse staggers the imagination! Howso? By what measure? Such a blanket statement, offered without proof, is nothing more than special pleading.
</i>Have you forgotten that divorce was illegal in many states until fairly recently? In my home state of PA, we were the last to go to no fault divorce and that was in the 70’s!</i>
Now I’m confused. Have you switched sides? You keep telling me that I’ve shown no proof that marriage has been on the decline since 1950 and then you post the above comment? How is the advent of divorce final NOT detrimental to the institution of marriage???? Yer killin’ me here… ;)
Bob,
Thank you. But now could you clarify what you mean by “good people” and “commitment”?
Sorry…
Also, you gave me the definition of parent, but I’m looking specifically for the definition of “Father”. Somebody, somewhere obviously believed it was important enough to single out and define. So what is your definition of “Father”.
While we’re at it, why do you limit the definition of marriage to two people. Is it not possible for 3 or more to enter into a committed relationship and maintain fidelity among the group? Would this not also be considered marriage if each member swore to remain faithful and committed? Why/why not?
Bob,
MK, good points. And yet you attribute these problems to…contraception.
No…contraception is not to blame entirely, just as homosexual marriage is not to blame entirely. Each however, has taken it’s little piece out of what it means to be married. Contraception simply made it easier to satisfy an itch without taking responsibility if that itch gets “infected”. I mean, sure, we have stuff to relive the itching from poison ivy, but we don’t go purposefully playing with the stuff. We want the physical pleasure that comes from sex without the responsibility. Contraception gives us the illusion that a. that pleasure is worth more than the human life that results from it and b. that we can have our cake and eat it too. But it’s a lie. Sometimes it will work out in our favor, but when it doesn’t the result isn’t a gained pound but a human child. Therefore the act must be taken more seriously than simply hitting a golf ball or eating a hot fudge sundae. The consequences are more serious so the act must be taken more seriously. In the case of abortion, it is deadly serious.
All I’m saying is that immediate gratification of the sexual organs is not worth the destruction of the family, unwanted children, fatherless homes, the welfare mom, the pain of divorce and the detrimental effects on society as a whole. You can’t and shouldn’t always get what you want, and sometimes what you want is not what is best for you or society in the long run…
You keep bringing up religion, and I agree that many people who claim to be religious end up doing the same things they preach against. But religion is not to blame per se. It’s preaching the right thing. We just aren’t practicing what we preach. If we were, if we were truly faithful to what we believe, then you’d see the principles of religion are good, not bad, for everyone. Of course, by religion, I mean the mainstream Judeo Christian ones as I’m sure you also do. Wicca is hardly what I’d consider a morally sound religion.
It helps to remember that religion (most especially the Catholic Faith) also took a hit in the 60’s and 70’s and you can see the results. We were poorly catechized, and few of us knew what the Church taught…even less knew why. Hopefully, with the influx of good clergy and the elimination of the Kumbaya era, we’ll see the fruits of truly living the Catholic Life. Meaning less illegitimate pregnancies, more virginity til marriage and fewer divorces. Time will tell, but I’m betting I’m right.
Nice post, mk. You have remarkable patience!
Okay bob, I can’t help but go back to this:
“Lea it’s a simple matter of mechanics. If you prevent sperm from reaching the egg no conception takes place. Contraception does that. Thus no illegitimacy. Didn’t your parents explain this to you?”
But if contraception fails during pre-marital sex you can sometimes end up with AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD…this is why the word “illegitimate” exists. Next topic: my passionate defense of the fact that sunburn is, in fact, caused by the sun.
bob said, “Reader’s Digest anecdotes are a poor substitute for evidence.”
<ul>Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001</ul>: “Substantial proportions of pill and condom users indicated perfect method use (13-14%).”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html
If you at least pretended you were serious perhaps you would be more convincing.
@ Lea S.
Lea S, perhaps it’s too complicated for you to realize that exposure to the sun often involves sunscreen. THAT is why exposure to the sun and sunburn are not related. Irresponsibility and sunburn ARE related but there’s NO relationship with exposure to the sun at all. Sunscreen. That is the factor that breaks the causal connection. (HT: @ bob on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 1:30 PM)
Sir, I’m sure that bob would have little choice but to agree with you. *wink*
I can’t imagine how you twisted two guys getting married as some perverse sign of immediate gratification as mentioned, when what you’re doing is making it impossible them to have what you have in the long term. Just skimming through it looks like there is really no wonder why you are now losing the national debate on this.
People at large just do not buy these arguments any more.
When I see tirades about how same-sex marriage devalues marriage but marriage is already devalued…. all I can think is why don’t you let some who do actually value it to give a shot? If it does not work for you don’t tell others how to do it.
@ Joseph R Yungk:
But you don’t value marriage. You value “marriage.” I’m not telling anyone how to do it. I’m just saying what it is.
Joseph R,
I can’t imagine how you twisted two guys getting married as some perverse sign of immediate gratification as mentioned,
And I can’t understand how you twisted an argument against premarital sex and contraception into an argument against gay marriage. I guess that’s why they call it a misunderstanding.
Homosexuality does indeed erode marriage, but obviously not for the same reasons that cohabitation does. We really don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies in a gay marriage now, do we?
Homosexual “marriages” erodes marriage because it “redefines” what marriage IS. Hence the title of this post. No matter how many times I say it, no matter how many “offical papers” it is written on, no matter how many people believe it…I can not make a Volkswagen Beetle BE a Porsche. Sure, they are both cars. There are similarities. Each will “get you” where you want to go. To the untrained eye there might not even “appear” to be a difference…but the fact remains that there is a specific definition of a Porshe and you want to change that definition so that it ceases to mean what it does. But once you change the definition so that any old car can be called a Porsche, the Porsche ceases to be what it is, the term Porsche loses it’s meaning and the Porsche loses it’s value. It doesn’t make the “clunker’ any MORE valuable, it simply means that the Porsche is less valuable. Marriage means something. As soon as you change it’s definition, it too loses meaning and loses value. It won’t make gay marriage MORE valuable, it will simply devalue the meaning of marriage altogether.
Your argument is that you just want to drive what I drive (a Porsche, I wish) but you can’t afford it. So rather than save and buy the real thing, or admit that you just can’t afford it, you change the definition of Porsche so that you can “claim” that you drive one too. Just as the polygamist thinks that driving 10 cars is the same as driving a Porsche.
Marriage is, by definition, the union of one MAN and one WOMAN. Change that and the word marriage becomes meaningless.
You might, might I say, have a case for civil unions. But you cannot, ever, have a case for marriage.
Joseph R Yungk said, “When I see tirades about how same-sex marriage devalues marriage but marriage is already devalued…. all I can think is why don’t you let some who do actually value it to give a shot?”
And what would it suggest if same-sex “marriage” were wildly more successful than traditional marriage? (A scenario highly unlikely, by the way, given that only 10-20% of those who identify as homosexual have availed themselves of the institution of “marriage” even in countries where it’s been permitted for a decade or more.) What compelling factor or factors could be present in same-sex “marriage” that could result in more successful unions than we find in traditional marriage?
Had I known it was just because you put quotes around it I’d have only just watched till then. But in the broader sense, just because you don’t consider something legitimate does not mean your state can’t. So I’ll consider your “arguments’” legitimacy in in those terms when you tell me about “truth”, “morals” and “faith”: all of which I’m entitled to also, based on my beliefs.
you are losing this argument across the country and the reality of the weakness of your reasoning, along with the attitude, is not helping.
Joseph R Yungk wrote “. . . you are losing this argument across the country . . .” Come, be honest: even the NYT acknowledged the SSM vote in NY was legally purchased. Stop pretending that anyone—including you—is swayed by rational arguments.
Joseph R,
First, if we do lose this argument, it is not due to our reasoning, but rather to an inability to use reason in this century. We no longer use reason, we use our emotions. If you looked at this argument strictly from reason you’d see the impossibility of what you ask. (See the Porsche argument above.
Second, just because you consider something “legitimate” does not mean that society will see it the same way.
Third, you are indeed free to hold whatever beliefs you choose. However, believing something does not make it true, any more than redefining marriage on paper makes the marriage legitimate or a VW Beetle a Porsche. Truth with or without quotes remains the same. Unless of course you’d like to redefine Truth, also?
Lastly, you seem to think, as most people do today, that what we believe becomes Truth. You are dead wrong. Truth simply is. You can choose to see it or not. But your view, perspective, beliefs or opinions have no impact on what Truth is. The Catholic Church recognizes Truth, She does not create it. Which is why we laugh at the idea of gay marriage. Or we would if it weren’t so sad. We snicker because we know that it is an impossibility. Not a belief or opinion. Not a matter of Faith or because the Church says so or because I think so…but because it is flat out impossible. So when you’re tooling around in you VW telling everyone it IS a Porsche, IT IS IT IS IT IS…you’ll excuse us if we smile at you as if you are senile. My 20 month old grandson thought he was a dog this afternoon…I won’t be making an appointment with the vet.
But you’re claiming something doesn’t exist because it’s not true. You don’t get any more say than myself as to how an arrangement like marriage exists.
“but rather to an inability to use reason in this century.”
I guess you’re stuck in a previous century, that’s all.
I’ll enjoy the 21st as much as I can and that includes a more tolerant society with freedom for all, not just catholics.
Joseph,
I understand. You need to do what you need to do. Keep in mind tho, that sometimes new things are great (washing machines, windshield wipers and the telephone)and sometimes, not so great (Platform shoes, nuclear weapons and Pre rolled cigarettes). You see us as clinging to the past, we see us as clinging to the Truth. Truth is eternal, it doesn’t change depending on what Century you are in.
Gay marriage is not about introducing something totally “new”. It’s about changing something so drastically that it ceases to mean anything. Which is why I said that you might be able to swing civil unions. THAT would be “new”. But no matter what you do, you can’t change the definition of marriage without rendering it meaningless.
I asked Bob to tell me what his definition of Marriage and Father was. Now I am asking you the same. Bob ran away. How ‘bout you?
J,
But you’re claiming something doesn’t exist because it’s not true. You don’t get any more say than myself as to how an arrangement like marriage exists.
BTW, that statement is proof of what I meant when I said that in the 21st century that you are so fond of, people are under the impression that it is what we THINK that makes reality. You are right. I have no more say than you do. But what either one of us SAYS has no bearing whatsoever on what IS. One of us might be right, both of us might be wrong, both of us cannot be right. There IS a reality. The question isn’t which one of us is “RIGHT”. This isn’t about I’m right, you lose.
So often I think these things turn into “What I say goes”. But that’s now where we’re coming from. We aren’t trying to win an argument. We are trying to preserve and protect the Truth. That means correctly recognizing something which already exists. It’s not like preferring raspberries over strawberries. It more like arguing over whether 2+2 equals 4 or 2+2 equals 5. Yes, one of us will be “right”, but not because we “Created” the reality. It’s because we “RECOGNIZED” the reality. I can take no credit for being “right” on this. I didn’t invent marriage any more than I invented the concept of 2+2=4. Marriage just is. Since the history of man, marriage by definition has been between men and women. Period. That is why we define it that way. Marriage came first, then the definition. Not the other way around, just as 2+2=4 came first, and THEN we defined it.
While I am “free” to claim that 2+2=5, I am not free to actually make it so. While I am “free” to claim that marriage can be between 2 men, I am not free to actually make it so. I just don’t have that power. I am not able to change reality. I am only able to refuse to accept it. But that’s called being delusional.
@mk
Thanks for showing up. Personally I like tweeking the gay activist, since everything they say is just agenda driven and nothing I can think of comes even close to your insights. Your clarity honesty and truth is truly worth a read.
Larry (and lea too)
*blush* awwwwwww….shucks!
I feel bad sometimes about these debates because we get so lost in the “I’m right/You’re wrong” scenario. If all of us are searching for the Truth, then TOGETHER we can find it. But if either of us is only interested in promoting our own agenda, satisfying our own needs or believing that opinions are all that matters, then we get on that proverbial merry go round and can’t get off. I honestly believe that most of us, on both sides, are sincere in our desire to do the right thing. The trick is to discover, as a team, what the “right” thing is. First, tho, you have to believe that there IS a “right” thing and not just personal viewpoints. It ain’t always easy to do, but sometimes, every once in a while, an actual conversation takes place. I love that.
Easy for you to say, obviously love and truth has found a home deep in your heart. It seems so easy to see the truth, but hard to live it. I do not envy you but am reminded how far I have to go yet. God bless you!
Larry,
First you have to know that Truth is a Who not a What. Then you let yourself fall madly, wildly in love with Him. Then living “it” becomes a breeze. Sometimes I struggle too. I can be awfully snarky myself. But I always find my way back into His arms and He gently but firmly puts me back on track. Just love Him. And let Him love you. It’s like any other relationship. First you gaze into His eyes. Then He gazes into yours. Then you both gaze into the future and make the journey together. And HE has a compass!
God Bless you too.
@ mk: A slight adjustment: Truth does not have a compass. He is the true North itself. :-)
Steven,
I love it!
“But what either one of us SAYS has no bearing whatsoever on what IS”
Actually we do when we call our legislators and you can easily see the results. That is democracy as opposed to a religious oligarchy. Now they are seeing that all people deserve a family. As mentioned, which at least one person openly does not want to deal with, this is the 21st century. This will keep happening when we see that all your slanderous doomsday scenarios do not happen.
“We are trying to preserve and protect the Truth.”
But your “Truth” is not ours or necessarily the government’s, get over it.
You could move to a strictly catholic country instead.
Oh Joseph,
I really, really, really wish that you could hear what you are saying. There are not multiple Truths just as there are not multiple answers to 2+2.
There are many things, many, many, many things in life that have nothing to do with the Moral world or Eternal Truths. Which car to drive, what your favorite day of the week is, where to go on vacation, whether to marry a white girl or a black girl, whether to wear your hair long or short, whether to major in math or French, whether to walk in the rain or carry an umbrella, whether to stay up late or go to bed early, whether to be democrat or republican, whether to sing alto or soprano…Governments and societies have the ability to decide speed limits and curfews and sentencing for crimes and license laws for pets…these are not eternal Truths. They are viewpoints, opinions, informed decisions based on facts…what we are talking about however does not fall into that category. Marriage, abortion, math, physics, beauty, truth, love…these are eternal Truths, Divine Law. They are simply not our jurisdiction. They preexisted us. It’s not that we can’t have opinions about whether to follow them, or like them, or respect them…what we cannot do is change them. They aren’t ours to change. It’s like saying we’ve decided the moon should be placed somewhere else or that cats should bark or snakes recite Shakespeare. Some things, to quote our President, are simply above our paygrade.
We cannot change the definition of marriage because we did not create the definition of marriage. I so wish that you could see this.
When it comes to Eternal Truth, Divine Law, Natural Moral Law…there is no YOUR Truth and OUR Truth. That is changing the definition of Truth just like you want to change the definition of marriage. To claim that there can be opposing Truths to render Truth meaningless. Can’t you see that? What does Truth mean?????
Oh Joseph,
I really, really, really wish that you could hear what you are saying. There are not multiple Truths just as there are not multiple answers to 2+2.
There are many things, many, many, many things in life that have nothing to do with the Moral world or Eternal Truths. Which car to drive, what your favorite day of the week is, where to go on vacation, whether to marry a white girl or a black girl, whether to wear your hair long or short, whether to major in math or French, whether to walk in the rain or carry an umbrella, whether to stay up late or go to bed early, whether to be democrat or republican, whether to sing alto or soprano…Governments and societies have the ability to decide speed limits and curfews and sentencing for crimes and license laws for pets…these are not eternal Truths. They are viewpoints, opinions, informed decisions based on facts…what we are talking about however does not fall into that category. Marriage, abortion, math, physics, beauty, truth, love…these are eternal Truths, Divine Law. They are simply not our jurisdiction. They preexisted us. It’s not that we can’t have opinions about whether to follow them, or like them, or respect them…what we cannot do is change them. They aren’t ours to change. It’s like saying we’ve decided the moon should be placed somewhere else or that cats should bark or snakes recite Shakespeare. Some things, to quote our President, are simply above our paygrade.
We cannot change the definition of marriage because we did not create the definition of marriage. I so wish that you could see this.
When it comes to Eternal Truth, Divine Law, Natural Moral Law…there is no YOUR Truth and OUR Truth. That is changing the definition of Truth just like you want to change the definition of marriage. To claim that there can be opposing Truths to render Truth meaningless. Can’t you see that? What does Truth mean????? Tell me. Define Truth, Define opinion, Define Marriage and Define Father. Do that, and then we can talk.
Good Heavens. Sorry about that double post…weird.
it actually doesn’t matter how many times you post it, we still have our religious freedoms too.
Joseph R Yungk wrote: “Actually we do [have a bearing on what is] when we call our legislators and you can easily see the results. That is democracy as opposed to a religious oligarchy.” So how much did you pay, um, contribute? Are there more Roman Catholic priests in NY than legislators? If so, wouldn’t the legislature be the oligarchy? Was the result of the Prop. 8 referendum in CA a democratic action?
Good points Steve.
Joseph,
I’m confused by your response. Where have I said you don’t have Religious Freedom? I think I have made it clear that you have the right to believe anything that you want. That doesn’t mean that your beliefs will reflect reality. It certainly doesn’t mean that you can change reality.
You’re right tho. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I post it or how many ways I say it. You seem to not hear a word I am saying. You have the freedom to believe anything that you want. You have the right to perceive reality and Truth any way that you want. You have the right to your opinion. You have the right to do what you choose. That is a God given right. It’s called free will. What you do not have the right to do, because you do not have the ABILITY to do, is to change what IS.
There is reality. There are people who perceive that reality. There are as many perceptions of any given reality as there are people. Perceptions are fluid. Perceptions are in the eye of the beholder.
But we are not talking about perceptions. We are talking about reality.
I saw Harry Potter today. He is speaking to Dumbledore after he has been killed by Voldemort. They are in an in between place. Harry looks around and asks Dumbledore where they are. Dumbledore responds, “It’s your parade Harry. You tell me”. Then Harry asks “Is this real? Or is it all in my head?” And Dumbledore responds “Of course it’s all in your head Harry. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t real”. In other words, the reality is there. In a universe that is unseen and unknowable using the normal 5 senses. Harry’s perceptions are his own. But the reality? That Harry has no control over. You perceive marriage as something that can happen between any two (or more as you’ve never given me your definition of marriage) people who want to be “married”. And that is fine as far as it goes. But your perceptions do not make it real. You will only be play acting, pretending. Much as children do when they play house. You might even go to your death believing in this delusion. But it remains a delusion. It’s all in your head. However, there is also a reality. You might not be able to perceive it correctly, but that is different than it not being what it is.
Even if you succeed in legislating that “Marriage” can be between two men, all you have done is pulled people into your distorted reality. You haven’t changed reality. You’ve simply changed peoples perceptions of it. You cannot change what marriage is, because you did not create what marriage is. It is outside of you. It is a “thing in itself”. Just like Truth. Just like beauty. The most you can hope to do is to imitate what real marriage is. Good luck to you. But you will be living a lie. You might even be happy doing so, and you might even convince a great many people that you’re right. But you won’t be. You can’t be. Because marriage, true marriage, is not from this world.
If someone can believe what he wants he can then have a same-sex marriage. Just because you don’t believe it means nothing to anyone else and even less to the state.
I can believe your church is much more evil than any relationship but I don’t forbid your weddings or mass. State law means more to me than your religion and there are a growing number of states who just don’t agree with you either, deal with it. It’s too bad you have to live with people who make you uncomfortable but they’ve been doing it for centuries around you.
And MK just doesn’t understand that he has no right to define marriage for me, or to even define me, in the first place. That seems to be the only thing you seem to feel you’re losing, but you never had it in the first place.
Joseph and emhcil,
I have never defined marriage and gone out of my way to say it wasn’t mine to define. I have certainly never defined you (Joseph) as I have no idea who you are. EM, you may of course believe my church is evil. My whole point is that your belief has no impact on whether or not my church IS evil. It doesn’t matter how many states agree or disagree with me. If a thing is True and NO ONE believes it, it remains True.
I am not uncomfortable with people who are gay. (Unless of course they are on a float flaunting their sexual activity in my face). I have nothing against people who are gay, nothing at all. This isn’t about what I am comfortable or uncomfortable with. That’s how YOU guys think. Not me. I’m the one saying that my “feelings” don’t enter into it. Comfort, anger, pleasure…none of these matter. Not when we are dealing with the Truth.
t’s too bad you have to live with people who make you uncomfortable but they’ve been doing it for centuries around you.
For the record, I am neither a “he” nor am I centuries old. Regardless of my gray hair! lol.
emhicl wrote “If someone can believe what he wants he can then have a same-sex marriage. Just because you don’t believe it means nothing to anyone else and even less to the state.” This is called anarchy.
Joseph R Yungk you’re working against yourself here; you write “MK just doesn’t understand that he has no right to define marriage for me, or to even define me, in the first place.” What do you suppose the root demos means in the word democracy? It seems to me that you are indeed arguing for an oligarchy – financed by you of course – rather than representative legislature. Was the result of the Prop. 8 referendum in CA a democratic result?
SteveP,
It seems that Joseph has a whole list of questions to answer, and he doesn’t seem to be in too much of a hurry to do so…maybe the answers aren’t to his liking?
1.Was the result of the Prop. 8 referendum in CA a democratic result?
2.Define Marriage
3.Define “Father”
4.Define Truth
5.Define opinion
Well Joseph? Are you going to answer these or will you disappear? Until we can agree on the definitions of words (like democracy) I’m afraid we can’t truly debate their merits. So what’ll it be? I find that often when it comes down to the nitty gritty, those that are relativistic thinkers usually bolt. Are you one of them?
“YI have never defined marriage and gone out of my way to say it wasn’t mine to define.”
No you say your church has the only say in how both marriage and myself are defined.
You’re forgetting that I don’t have to have your church in my life.
by the way, prop 8 was shut down because there was “no rational” explanation as to how discriminating against gays was necessary to avoid damages to others. They could not. Easy, we have a constitution. Don’t like it, move the the vatican.
‘My whole point is that your belief has no impact on whether or not my (relationship) IS evil.’
When you are capable of having reasoning skills that go both ways let me know. This is where you failed with prop 8. You want your freedoms but are not willing to extend them to others.
Joseph,
Let’s add “freedom” to the list of words to be defined.
And as for prop 8, it was decided by whom? It was certainly not decided by the people. Are you saying that freedom means that those in office have the power to do whatever they like because they ARE in power? And you call that freedom? What if tomorrow it is people who HATE gays that have the power? What if they decide that you not only don’t have the right to marry, you don’t have the right to live with each other? Or worse? Can I then say that “THEY” couldn’t prove it was helpful to society for gays exist and if you don’t like it move to Switzerland? By your standards, we could run this country as a theocracy if only we could get enough orthodox Catholics voted in! Nonsense. Homosexuals make up 4% of this country. A majority of Americans do not want homosexual marriages. Explain to me how that is constitutional or democratic? On what constitutional grounds is Gay Marriage a
“right”? Heck, Marriage isn’t technically a “Right”. Or I should say, it’s not a legislative Right. Any more than the Right to Life. Some rights are innate. The government cannot touch them (of course the government doesn’t seem to get this). They cannot grant them, or take them away. They aren’t the governments to give!
My church has not defined you, nor has it defined marriage. If you’d read anything that I’ve written you’d understand that. Look, you don’t have to agree with what I’m saying. But at the very least, if you are going to disagree, try to disagree with what I have actually said. The Church has not defined marriage, I have not defined marriage, and you cannot define marriage. It is now OURS, any of OURS, to define. That is my point. And has been since we started his conversation. I can describe the moon, but I can not change what it is. The definition of marriage is Divine Law. Natural Law. Universal Law. NOBODY can change it’s definition. Now, if you want to disagree with the existence of Universal Law, so be it. But disagreeing with the Church defining marriage is nonsense, because she DIDN’T define it. She is not free to redefine it, and neither are you.
Let’s add this to the list of questions. Can a mother marry her son if both are of age? Can a brother marry a brother? Can a sister marry her sister? How about a Grandfather marrying his granddaughter? Why should there be age limits on when you can marry? Why is polygamy wrong? Or is it?
You have answered NONE of the questions I have asked. You call me unreasonable, and yet I am the one that is asking questions that could actually move this conversation along, while you are the one that is throwing out rhetoric and insults. Seriously! You keep stomping your foot and saying “I want, I want, I want…therefore I should have” and calling that a reasonable argument! I have asked you very reasonable questions and you haven’t managed to answer a single one. I can only assume you are not really interested in dialogue but only in stating and restating the same old, same old. I’m throwing up my hands. It is so frustrating to talk with you guys. You never add anything new, you never address what we say, you don’t answer questions…
You’re argument basically comes down to “I want to marry my boyfriend and you can’t stop me…nyah,nyah,nyah”. You got me there. That’s hard to argue with. All I can say is “I know you are, but what am I”.
J,
My whole point is that your belief has no impact on whether or not my (relationship) IS evil.’
I’ll argue my points, when I’ve made them. I have never said that your relationship was evil. I have never once used the word “evil”. I couldn’t care less what your relationship is. I don’t care if you’re in love with you Aunt Fannie, your boyfriend or the neighbors goat. We are discussing marriage, not relationships. You are free to love whomever you want. You are not free to redefine marriage. Not in any real sense. Period.
“I couldn’t care less what your relationship is.”
Well that’s what your church is insisting on. And you have no right to define marriage in the first place.
You’re losing on all fronts.
Oh. My. God.
Maybe you’re blind. Maybe it’s not your fault. That is the only logical explanation for consistently claiming I have said things that I have not said. Over, and over, and over again I have stated. I did not define marriage. The Church did not define marriage. Paragraph after paragraph, painstakingly choosing my words, explaining, reexplaining…I did not define marriage. The Church did not define marriage. You did not define marriage. Marriage preexists us. It defines itself.
Your response (again)?
And you have no right to define marriage in the first place.
Maybe you’re not blind. Maybe you can’t read. Or maybe you’re only 12 years old? Whatever the reason for this inability to grasp a simple statement, it’s good for a laugh if nothing else.
You’re losing on all fronts.
Spit my Pepsi out when I read that one. Maybe you should do standup. I don’t get it. I really don’t. You’ve repeated on erroneous statement over and over and over again…and I’M losing on all fronts? So maybe we’re redefining “losing” now? Too funny.
Here, I’ll play it your way.
You say that polygamy is okay. Children should be able to marry adults if they want. 50 year old men should be able to marry 7 year old girls or boys. I think you’re wrong. You have no right to say those things!
marriage is a contract that the state administers. we’re winning.
You’re welcome to file some kind of lawsuit but it won’t work.
I never expressed any opinion on polygamy.
I seem to be repeating myself a lot on what I didn’t say. You really need to read before you respond. that may account for what you think of as “erroneous” statements, I’ve seen a lot of that here.
You also claim I have not right to define marriage and neither do you, but that point is followed by your definition marriage. That definition is also from your church which you also claim does not have any right to make such definitions either.
There’s a complete absence of logic there. This is why you are losing. Like it or not, the state defines marriage.
Joseph,
I never expressed any opinion on polygamy.
Lol. I was just playing by your rules. You know, accuse the other side of saying all kinds of things they didn’t say, then reapeat the accusations over and over. Frustrating, ain’t it?
Of course you didn’t say anything about polygamy. (I notice you didn’t claim you didn’t say anything about 50 year old men marrying 7 year olds)
But by your rules, I should accuse you again anyway. Not to mention, you never said anything about polygamy or anything else for that matter because you won’t answer my questions.
Who defined 2+2=4? Did they create it? Or did it already exist, and they recognized it? Did Pythagoras invent the Pythagorean Theory? Or did he discover it? Am a free to redefine it because I don’t like it? These things are TRUTHS. Eternal TRUTHS. They cannot be redefined because we didn’t define them to begin with. They already existed. Just as marriage already existed. Just as Fatherhood already existed. Just as motherhood already existed.
Here’s where you say “Oh yeah! Well you can’t define marriage and neither can your church. And you can’t define me either…!” Rinse, Repeat. Sheesh!
You’re welcome to file some kind of lawsuit but it won’t work.
So now you’re the Amazing Kreskin, too?
As I’ve said. You can “claim” anything you want. In the lawbooks, on paper, in your coffee clutch…it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change reality. As I have said, over and over and over…it is an illusion. The cow never jumped over the moon, Star Trek is just a TV show and The Lord of the Rings was a Catholic Story. It doesn’t matter how many children believe cows jump over the moon, or how many Trekkies gather each year or what Peter Jackson believes. They are living in lala land.
Denying reality. PRETENDING. If and when Homosexual Marriages become the “norm”, they will only be delusions. They will be pretend. Fantasy. Capiche?
That definition is also from your church which you also claim does not have any right to make such definitions either.
And I’m the irrational one???? Marriage has been around since humanity began. My “CHURCH” has only been around for 2,000 years. It’s not even possible for my Church to have defined marriage! Arrrrrrggggggh!
the state can broaden the criteria for marriage.
hope that’s clear
Yep. Clear as mud.
Can I broaden the criteria for the hypotenuse triangle to include squares? Can I broaden “foot” to mean 13 inches? Can I broaden the criteria of father to include woman? Can I broaden the criteria for rose to mean acorns?
All of these things existed before us and we gave them names. Same with marriage.
The reason you aren’t being rational is because you are not arguing the right thing. Our premises are different. Of course your conclusion will be different. I’m just trying to point out that my starting point is not the same as yours. I believe in Objective Truth. You believe in relativism. According to my premise, I am being perfectly logical. According to yours, you are being perfectly logical. The question isn’t whether or not marriage can be redefined (at least that isn’t the question yet). The question is whether or not my premise or your premise is right. I hold that mine is. No civilization that has ever been founded on relativism has lasted. It can’t. Divine Law. A system based on relativism will collapse. That’s just a fact. Can’t play monopoly, can’t write a symphony, can’t count to ten if you are basing your foundation on relativism. What you’ll get is an endless board game, a cacophony of disjointed notes or a jumble of numbers that is meaningless. EVERYTHING is based on laws. Natural laws, societies laws, physical laws. ONLY when you follow those laws can you lead an orderly life or have an orderly society. Relativism is a lie based on emotions and desires. You can have your cake, but you can’t eat it. It’s all an illusion.
Joseph R Yungk: Did you read, in today’s news, that the Mayor of NYC, as a private citizen of course, paid, um, contributed, $10,000 to each of the four State Senators as campaign funds, those who changed their “conscience” in the SSM vote? Tell me again how this “democracy” thing works and how it is different from an oligarchy?
“The question is whether or not my premise or your premise is right.”
And that’s where laws come in. Laws have criteria. Right now these criteria are being decided at the state level. That is where these things are done.
How much does your church pay for… um contribute to antigay propaganda?
Joseph,
<i>How much does your church pay for… um contribute to antigay propaganda?<i>
First, my Church doesn’t make laws that affect anyone except members of the Church. If you can’t see a difference between contributing to a Church and buying a senators vote, then I fear you are in a worse place than I thought. Second, what anti gay propaganda????
As for laws…
You have an argument for gay marriage and as I pointed out based on your premise (moral relativism) your argument is logically sound.
I have an argument against gay marriage and based on my premise (Objective Moral Truth) my argument is logically sound.
Being logically sound, however, does not make a thing “right”. It just makes it logically sound.
Laws work the same way. There are good laws and there are bad laws. You seem to think that because a thing is civil law, it is “good and right”. Slavery, abortion, capital punishment…all sorts of things are on the books as “law”...but they are “bad and wrong”. Heck, as I write this there are still a number of states with anti sodomy laws. Which means, you could get married legally, but you can’t legally consummate the marriage. That’s the “LAW”. (For the record I think those laws are silly as what you do in your bedroom is your business). The point is, that according to what you are saying, it is good and right to ban sodomy, because it is the “LAW”. What I have been saying is that there is “right” and there is “wrong” and civil Law has no bearing on which is which. Civil law SHOULD reflect Divine Law. When it doesn’t, as in gay marriage, then it is wrong.
Which is why, if gay marriage becomes the norm, it will still be an illusion, no matter how many laws say otherwise. Just as abortion remains wrong, even tho the law books say otherwise.
@ Joseph R Yungk: I’m not really closely following this conversation (I’ve been traveling), but let’s not confuse free-speech efforts to support or oppose campaigns for candidates or voter referenda, which ultimately presuppose and rely on the democratic process, with political deals based on promises to shield representatives from or compensate them for the displeasure of their constituents by promising them that your friendship will be more of an asset than their vote will be a liability, which clearly subverts and despises the democratic process. Especially when the final vote thus bought comes from a representative who ran explicitly opposing same-sex marriage. Agree or disagree with the outcome, let’s not pretend that what happened in New York is anything other than a triumph of raw political power over democracy and the will of the people.
But your church does campaign too, with slurs and slander and donations.
“my Church doesn’t make laws that affect anyone except members of the Church.”
They are campaigning against my ability to form a family. I’d call that a law that affects me.
“let’s not pretend that what happened in New York is anything other than a triumph of raw political power over democracy and the will of the people.”
So you’re no longer in a position to do that yourselves anymore. Even with threats of excommunication for senators who do their job and think of more than just their catholic constituents. The pendulum has swung.
Exactly who has been threatened with excommunication? Not that it would be inappropriate.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35459 Sounds like a threat to me.
Need I mention DiMarzio?
And it’s because they were considering the needs of constituents other than just catholics. That’s an aspect of democracy.
I asked earlier how much your church pays for campaigning against gays and it’s no longer there nor answered. How much has your church spent over the centuries making donations?
Joseph,
So many fallacies…
Let’s start with excommunication. Excommunication is not a threat. The Church doesn’t excommunicate you. You excommunicate yourself. By making certain choices, of your own free will, you CHOOSE to fall out of communion with the Church. The Church will recognize that you are no longer in communion with the Church but she doesn’t use Excommunication as a tool of leverage.
Now lets tackle this statement:
There are so many things wrong with that statement…tell me something. Are there any words, any words at all, whose definition you will not change. Do you honestly not see a difference between “campaigning” against or for something and the thing being a “law”? The Church and her members have opinions. Last time I checked the people of the United States were allowed Free Speech. Unless you’ve changed that definition also? I have a son who doesn’t view reality very clearly. Whenever he makes one of his knucklehead statements, we say: “There’s Danny’s world, and the Real World”. I feel compelled to say the same thing to you.
There’s Josephs world and the Real world. In Joseph’s world law and campaign have the same meaning. In Josephs world “the pendulum has swung” In Josepsh’s world, 2 men can “Make” a family. In the real world law and campaign mean two different things. In the real world people are joining the Catholic Church in droves. In the real world 2 men can make hay but they cannot make a “family”. The parts are all wrong! In Josephs world, all he has to do is say it is so, and it is so. In the real world, lots of people have differing opinions and guess what? They get to express them. In Josephs world reality is what Joseph says it is. In the real world, well, it is what it is no matter what Joseph says.
I asked earlier how much your church pays for campaigning against gays and it’s no longer there nor answered. How much has your church spent over the centuries making donations?
You’re joking right? I have at least 7 questions on the table, of which you have answered 1…2…3…oh that’s right. None. You ask one (which WAS answered by the way) and get bent out of shape because you can’t find that comment????
Our Church does not PAY to campaign against Gays. Our Church has no problem with homosexuals. Just because you are too short sighted to see the difference between a person and a behavior doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference. As for the question “not being there” check at 3:52. You do a lot of accusing. Yet most of your accusations are in that place we call Josephs World, better know as your head. The list is getting longer by the minute! We pay to campaign against gays. We make laws. We define marriage. We threaten excommunication. We suck your comments into the void…NONE of which are true. No wonder you get so frustrated discussing things with us. You throw out lie after lie, false accusation after false accusation, don’t read any of the responses, don’t answer questions and then act as if WE are being irrational. It’s like arguing with a teenager!
Catholics have as much right to an opinion as anyone else. Accept that or move on…Our opinion is that gay marriage is an impossibility. And if we want to shout that from the roof tops we will because it is our Constitutional Right. Just as it is your right to wear women’s clothing, bribe senators to give you what you want and have that lovely little party called the Folsom Street Fair! Talk about shoving stuff down other peoples throats!
And the ironic thing is that there ARE legitimate arguments for gay marriage. You could actually be using your time to put some of those forth. Instead you spew out the most ridiculous stuff…it boggles the mind. It is true that no matter what you say you won’t change our minds, but at least you wouldn’t sound so absurd! You might help us to see your viewpoint and you might gain a better understanding of ours. Which means we might be able to peaceably share a planet. As it is, I don’t even know how to rebut you as most of what you say is so daft! Think man! Seriously, come up with something that isn’t so easily shot down!
*sigh* And for the record? The article you linked to “proving” that the Church is threatening excommunication? That is one Cardinal expressing his personal opinion. Hardly an Ex Cathedra statement. Being a Catholic is voluntary. Choosing to go against what the Church teaches is also voluntary. If you voluntarily go against what the Church teaches, you voluntarily “leave” the Church. Duh. Is it unfair for the ump to call foul?
You really can’t deny that your church has campaigned against gay marriage.
You really can’t deny that this cardinal was speaking for the church.
“Our Church has no problem with homosexuals. ”
I’ve been laughing at these statements for days. Do I really need to reiterate what problems with homosexuality your church has? This very thread shows your problems with homosexuals based on your church’s instruction.
Do any of you remember cardinal bertone claiming that pedophilia was a homosexual problem?
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5999
You are now really struggling to get out of a very complicated web as shown by your personal attacks.
This is another reason why gays are winning and will continue to.
You really can’t deny that your church has campaigned against gay marriage.
I have not denied that. I would not deny that. It is clear that the Church does not believe Gay Marriage is possible and She have been vocal about that belief. So what?
You really can’t deny that this cardinal was speaking for the church.
I can and most certainly do deny that he was speaking “for the Church”. He has no authority to do so.
“Our Church has no problem with homosexuals. ”
I’ve been laughing at these statements for days. Do I really need to reiterate what problems with homosexuality your church has? This very thread shows your problems with homosexuals based on your church’s instruction.
Read what I wrote. Then read what you wrote. The Church has no problem with HOMOSEXUALS. Do I really need to reiterate what problems with HOMOSEXUALITY your Church has? Yes. You do. That way I can be clear that you understand the difference between persons and actions. As of yet, I don’t think you are able to make the distinction. The Church most certainly does take issue with homosexual BEHAVIOR. She does not take issue with homosexual PERSONS.
They are not personal attacks. I have attacked your arguments. I have not attacked you. Yet again you show that you do not know the difference. Your arguments are repetitive, sophomoric and empty. They don’t have to be. I have argued with others who have done a great job making their case. You have not.
What I have attacked is your refusal to answer questions, your constant false accusations about things that you don’t understand but think that you do and your very weak arguments for gay marriage. I have not attacked you. I don’t know anything about you except what you have written. Going on that, I’d say you’ve given me plenty of fuel.
As for homosexuals and pedophilia. You define homosexuality differently than we do. It used to mean sexual activity with persons of the same sex. Given that most of the children who were molested were boys and all of those who molested them were men, from our viewpoint it was homosexual behavior. It was more than that to be sure. At the same time that these incidents were taking place, there was also an influx of homosexuals being ordained as priests. This caused it’s own set of problems as they were not honoring their vows of celibacy.
Technically, the child molestations that took place were of a homosexual nature. Before you get your knickers in a knot, NO ONE is saying that homosexuals are pedophiles. All Muslims are not terrorists. Yet, most terrorists today ARE Muslim. All homomsexuals are not pedophiles. Yet, most of the molestations that took place WERE of a homosexual nature.
It’s not our fault you guys have changed the definition of homosexuality. Are you honestly going to deny that a homosexual organization called NAMBA exists, consisting of homosexuals who prefer their partners young? IF the priests had predominantly molested young girls we would have said that the offenses were predominantly heterosexual in nature.
For someone who is “WINNING” you sure are defensive… ;)
Here. Maybe this will help.
HOMOSEXUALITY: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
FATHER: 1.a male parent.
2 a father-in-law, stepfather, or adoptive father.
3 any male ancestor, especially the founder of a race, family, or line; progenitor.
TRUTH: a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality ;
: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
DIVINE LAW/NATURAL LAW: Noun 1. divine law - a law that is believed to come directly from God
natural law, law - a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society
POSITIVE LAW:
Positive law is the term generally used to describe man-made a laws which bestow or remove specific privileges upon an individual or group. Contrast this with natural law which are inherent rights, not conferred by act of legislation.
OPINION: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
LAW: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling ...
CAMPAIGN: campaign - a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end;
POSITIVE LAW:
Positive law is the term generally used to describe man-made a laws which bestow or remove specific privileges upon an individual or group. Contrast this with natural law which are inherent rights, not conferred by act of legislation.
There will be a quiz later…. ;)
I got to the part about you defining child abuse as homosexual and went from laughing to rolling my eyes.
So you are the ones who are using definitions that nobody else agrees with. Another reason you don’t get to define marriage.
I’m not even going to dignify anything else with from that post with further reading or comment.
As you wish. If you HAD read further you’d know that once again you are making false accusations. I guess that easier that dealing with what was actually said. You have a pattern of doing so.
We use definitions that nobody agrees with? I posted the Merriam Webster definition of homosexuality, so who this “nobody” is I haven’t a clue. (Perhaps we should define that word also?) Winners don’t “walk away”. It’s not usually the guy on top that takes his ball and goes home. What a surprise that the last thing you said before you walked away was “You don’t get to define marriage”...lol. Now that’s one I hadn’t heard before!
Seriously tho, I’m sure we’ll meet again. I hope by then you’ve brushed up on the definitions of the words you will be throwing around and are better able to defend your position. As I’ve said, others have done a much better job. Heck, I could do a better job and I’m against gay marriage. You’re constant repetition of the same statements over and over is a lot like the argument “It’s wrong because the Bible says so”. There are compelling reasons on both sides of this argument…it’s a shame that in the course of this thread you haven’t used a single one of them. Practice. Next time we meet I want a run for my money! Peace.
@ mk—YOu have some serious stamina. Maybe you wore him down and he got tired of lying. We’ll see, usually the gay activist never let you get the last word.
Larry,
Lol…I don’t think I’ve ever walked away from one of these conversations. The difference between Joseph and I is that I seek Truth at all costs. That means that if Truth tells me something I don’t like or don’t want to hear, I have to change. Joseph follows his feelings and desires and couldn’t care less about Truth. For him, when Truth says something he doesn’t like or doesn’t want to hear, he simply changes the Truth.
YOU? It was a pleasure talking with! :)
I just wish he would have actually read half of what I wrote.
As for him getting the last word…hahah…it doesn’t matter. Since he only has one argument, we both know what those last words would have been! “YOU CAN’T DEFINE MARRIAGE” which is the same as stomping your foot and saying “You’re not the boss of me!” Too funny.
@ mk—I hope to catch you here blogging with others, do you always go by—-mk—?
Larry,
Yes. A friend directed me to NCR a few months ago and I love it. I tend to go the posts about the Church, homosexuality, abortion…you know, the controversial stuff. I usually like debating with atheists as I find many of them are really intelligent. It makes for good conversation. People like Joseph are more frustrating as their actual arguments are weak. Sadly, I have to admit that I am less than patient with the Protestants. There are a couple here who switch names to protect the guilty and they have managed to truly get me angry. I always regret it. I long for the day when one of them will actually discuss the Faith (both Protestant and Catholic) in a clear and reasonable manner, but so far I haven’t had any luck. One guy a while back actually claimed the Bible wasn’t put together until the 1500’s! That’s when I knew I was dealing with someone who wasn’t playing with a full deck. Again, when the Truth disagrees with you, change the Truth, not yourself! Bishop Sheen says “People don’t want to change. They just want to feel better” Now THAT’S the Truth! lol
And yes, I always use MK. My name is Mary Kay. Mother of six, grandmother of 4. Revert…20 years now. I keep waiting for the passion to wane but it never does. If anything it gets stronger! I used to moderate Jill Staneks blog. Now THOSE were some hard core pro choicers. But I cut my teeth over there and have been hooked on blogging ever since! What a great way to share the Faith!
Actually what you see as “Truth” is still religion and you go on to define
“Truth” as you see fit even when it comes to misquoting others. Your reasoning and your behavior are neither ethical honest or Christian. Quite bitter as a matter of fact.
I’ve uncovered a lot of hypocrisy here and I’m glad it shows. You may live in a world where you make sense but as you can see in shifting legislation you are increasingly proven wrong and will be increasingly alone with your own bitterness.
Bitter? Moi? I don’t think so….could be I came across that way. I’ve been called a lot of things. Opinionated, pushy, loud, bossy….but bitter? Never. As for honesty, I have been nothing but. I can’t imagine what you view has hypocrisy. Everything I have said is accepted by the majority of people throughout history. Atheistic Humanism is actually an pretty novel idea when you view history as a whole. Catholics make up 24% of the population in America. Homosexuals make up 4%. The world I live in is heavily populated with like minded thinkers. And as I have pointed out numerous times, legislation does not represent public opinion (especially on this issue) nor does it mean that something is morally right. I have never, not once, argued that gay marriage will not become legal in this country in my lifetime. I don’t think I’ve even addressed that question. All I have said, and I have been consistent in doing so, is that no matter what legislation says or does, no matter how many papers are signed and no matter how many people agree, gay marriage is an impossibility. I’ll say it really, really slowly…If. Gay. Marriage. Becomes. The. Norm. It. Will. Be. A. Lie. It will look like gay marriage, it will smell like gay marriage, it will sound like gay marriage…but it while it might be gay, it can NEVER be marriage. Saying it is so, doesn’t make it so.
As for proving us wrong…puhlease! You have proven nothing. Saying it over and over is not proof.
Am I free to say that 5+5=14? If I say it often enough, and we pass legislation that says it’s so, and 95% of the population believes it to be so…will 5+5=14??????
Truth my friend. Truth. You can’t change Truth. You can CLAIM to change Truth, but then it is a lie. Which ain’t the Truth. And that’s the Truth.
Actually what you see as “Truth” is still religion
Do the math.
Truth…since the beginning of time.
Catholic Church…2,000
How is it even physically possible for religion to author Truth???? Truth was here eons before any Church, ANY Church ever was. That’s why they call it Eternal Truth. It’s out of time. It’s not even possible that Truth comes from my religion. How can you not see this???
Philosophy outdates the Catholic Church by thousands upon thousands of years. The word PHILOSOPHY means love of Wisdom/Truth. Unless the Catholic Church can time travel, how could they possible have invented Truth?
Here’s another Truth for you Joseph. The homosexual agenda is the new “black”. Right now, it’s in the forefront. But people will grow bored with their new pet and move on to saving left handed people or albino cows or Scandinavian Aardvarks…Right now it’s “cool” to be gay and even cooler to be straight and pro gay. But it is a faze, a fad, a passing craze. It will end. We are being saturated right now with gay everything. But we are a fickle country and all too soon you will be passe. As Steven G pointed out, out of the 4% of the population that IS gay, only a fraction are actually getting married. I read that a hundred couples are prepped and ready in New York. A HUNDRED???? Call me when there’s 6 million. I have more people over for Thanksgiving dinner than that!
“Unless the Catholic Church can time travel, how could they possible have invented Truth?”
Then you church really can’t say with any reliability what “Truth” is. Therefor the state does.
Your “Truth” is only dictated by your church. No you don’t have a time machine which is why you can’t dictate my truth.
You have also lied here (putting words in others’ statements) showing that whatever you think is “Truth” is pretty much made up in your head.
That’s quite a leap…from my Church didn’t invent Truth, therefore it can’t know Truth. An even greater leap is “I, Joseph R., have invented Truth”. Here’s why that statement is wrong. NO ONE invented Truth. NO ONE creates Truth. There is no such thing as MY Truth. There is no such thing as your Truth. As soon as you put “My”, ‘Your” or “Our” in front of the word Truth it ceases to be Truth. That is the concept that you are not grasping.
There is Truth. There are those who RECOGNIZE Truth. There are those who wouldn’t know Truth if it bit them in the ascot. Here’s the rub. None of these people have any affect on Truth. Until you have that concept under your belt, you can’t even begin to discuss Truth. You keep confusing Truth with Opinion. That’s why I put up those definitions.
I have repeatedly asked you to clarify what you mean by certain things, yet you have failed to do so. How can we possibly argue whether something is Truth or not, if you we can’t agree on what Truth IS? How can we argue whether or not something can be marriage when we haven’t agreed on what marriage IS? How can we argue about whether homosexuality is good, if we haven’t agreed on what homosexuality IS?
““I, Joseph R., have invented Truth”.”
there you go. I never said anything like that. Glad you could demonstrate your distortions yet again. If that’s how you reason, you and your church have no claim on ever knowing whatever the “Truth” is.
“How can we possibly argue whether something is Truth or not, if you we can’t agree on what Truth IS?”
That’s your problem. You insist on forcing your “Truth” on others but you only allow yourself to see part of a bigger picture while distorting what you do see. I am entitled to look at things differently and that state can too.
It’s certainly not my truth and I don’t have to believe yours.
Joseph,
Of course you did. You’ve said a number of times that my Truth is not your Truth. This means that you believe that you can create Truth. That their can be more than one Truth, and that you, Joseph have decided your own Truth. I say that no one can create Truth. See…here…you did it again…
It’s certainly not my truth and I don’t have to believe yours.
It’s not “your” Truth and “my” Truth. How can I get you to understand this. I’m not asking you to believe MINE because I have no Truth. I believe in THE Truth, not MY Truth. How many times have we been over this???
Joseph, please. Let’s start fresh. I was not being facetious when I asked you to define Truth and Opinion. I really believe that until we can define the words we are debating, the debate can not move forward. So please, please, please…let’s just focus on one word. Truth. What is your definition of Truth. Once we have established that, we can then move on to our perceptions of the Truth…our opinions. So please, I am asking you honestly and sincerely. What does “TRUTH” mean to you?
You are free to believe anything that you want. You are free to have any opinion that you want. You are NOT FREE to change Truth. By definition.
You’re still stating truth according to you. ““The Truth”“, according to you, does not have to be anything I subscribe to in any way.
There are many different beliefs and ways of living in the USA. You really need to accept that others do not agree with you. Licentious paraphrasing won’t ever help.
Joseph R Yungk: Did you read the news today? A lawsuit has been filed in NY State which contends the NY State Senate did not pass the SSM law legally. The response from the NY Governor’s office is that the suit is without merit as, to paraphrase, the plantiffs do not understand how law is created in NY State. So, democracy or oligarchy at work? That is, should the judiciary contend with the “will of the people?”
Joseph,
Please. What is Truth?
I have never argued that people do not have different beliefs. I have never said that they must agree with me. So telling me I need to accept this is silly, since I have always accepted it. I am not the one that has a difficult time differentiating between belief, opinion and Truth. Which is why I am asking you again…please…tell me what Truth is.
“I have never said that they must agree with me.”
You just want your “Truth” legislated into my life. I don’t need to have anyone like you validate my belief system.
Joseph,
I am a. not validating your belief system. b. have not addressed this issue from any thing but a philosophical standpoint and c. have as much right to fight for what I think is right as you do. Somehow you think we have no right to speak out, but you have every right to do so. If the Catholic Church is so dang scary, how come gay folks are getting married in New York. You go on and on and on about the Catholic Church forcing it’s views on you…hilarious, considering it is YOUR side that has forced it’s views on the majority of Americans. You’re afraid to put it to a vote because you know you’ll lose so instead you push through your agenda regardless of any one elses views…the very thing you keep saying the Catholic Church is doing. If anyone is the boogey man in this scenario, it’s you, not us. We are following protocol, speaking out, rallying…you on the other hand have disregarded protocol in favor of bullying and bribes. Shame on you. At least have the guts to own it and quit making the Church out to be some Facist Dictator.
Abortion is legal. Done unconstitutionally. Gay marriage is legal. Done unconstitutionally. Parental notification is legal. Done unconstitutionally. Yet WE are the monsters? Seriously. I’m sending you a mirror in the mail. Take a good look in it. See yourself the way we see you.
Regardless of the above, I have not even addressed the morality of homosexuality. My arguments have been purely philosophical, no theology at all. Marriage is between a man and a woman because that’s what it IS. It is philosophy, not religion that is your enemy. Truth, my friend. Define it for me.
MK claims: “considering it is YOUR side that has forced it’s views on the majority of Americans.”
There you go Joseph, they’ve persecuted others like you for centuries, campaigned against your rights by slandering you, preached that your love is evil and the biggest threat to society but they’re not shoving anything down your throat. Even when MK was cyberstalking you. Just living openly is an infringement on their “freedom”.
I’m amazed how people can perceive certain things. Asking for equality and stating your opinion while other freely do so is way over the line. Then among their hostility they claim they never attack.
The opposing side has shown more hypocrisy trying to explain these things over the last couple of weeks than I’ve seen in my life.
Thank you.
Even when MK was cyberstalking you
Ummmmm…this is a Catholic website and Joseph came to us? If I went to a gay website, began attacking their views and beliefs, would you say that anyone who took the time to address me was cyberstalking me? I think not. What I want to know is why you’ve been lurking for all these weeks…who does that? I have never gone to a gay website and played voyeur. What possible motive could you have for paying this much attention to something you obviously detest? Creepy if you ask me. Unless of course you’re pulling a cowardly lion? “I’ll do it. I’ll be a homosexual. I’m not afraid. There’s only one thing I want you guys to do…talk me out of it!”. Perhaps you’re openly gay, but a closet Catholic?
As for persecuting you for centuries…I know I admitted to being a grandmother, but centuries???
Both side have spoken their views. But it is not our side that is holding weddings in New York. So obviously, we are not shoving anything down anyones throat. The culture is saturated with homosexuality. Everywhere I turn I come face to face with the homosexual agenda. It’s everywhere. As I said, it’s “cool” right now. Every television show, music, plays, school, the news…I WISH the Catholic Church got that much airplay.
emhicl said, “they’ve persecuted others like you for centuries, campaigned against your rights by slandering you, preached that your love is evil and the biggest threat to society”
It is the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” that threatens society and religious freedom, and the fact that it has gotten as far as it has suggests that whatever “campaign against your rights” there is has so far been relatively ineffective. The suggestion that this goes back centuries makes no sense at all, for the technology that has led to the possibility of same-sex “marriage” making the headway it has has only come about in the past few decades. Artificial contraception and sterilization have fostered the idea that marriage can be separated from procreation, and in vitro fertilization has fostered the idea that procreation can be separated from sexual intercourse. Without these developments the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” as the “equal” of traditional marriage by a significant portion of the population would be inconceivable.
—————
“Then among their hostility they claim they never attack.”
So what would you consider a noble defense of traditional marriage and religious freedom that could not be considered an attack of its own? Is it you that’s in the position of turning the other cheek, or us?
It’s amazing, isn’t it?
Centuries of harassment from a church based on someone’s own instincts with all the same needs as anyone else and they have no idea.
And this:
“for the technology that has led to the possibility of same-sex “marriage” making the headway it has…”
Wow.
“for the technology that has led to the possibility of same-sex “marriage” making the headway it has…” Wow.
Your refusal to define “Truth” compounded with your inability to “tell the Truth” can only come from a few reasons. 1. You don’t know 2. You know, but realize that if you admit that, you will be forced to tell the Truth 3. You are completely out of touch with reality and therefore Truth cannot be distinguished from lies.
Joseph,
Would you please define Truth for me.
As for the comment you made…Please show us where homosexuals, ANYWHERE IN HISTORY, have ever sought the status of legal Marriage.
Or show us where, in this country, the Catholic Church has EVER persecuted homosexuals.
Your arguments were weak before, but they have now actually taken a turn for the worse. I get the feeling you are fighting for the “last word” but have run out of words and are left with banality. Here’s how grownups do it. We make a statement. We back it up. We define the terms we are using. We show evidence. We refute evidence. Children, on the other hand say things like “We’re the winners, you’re the losers”, “My dad is bigger than your dad”, “You guys are always pickin’ on me”...
Define Truth for me and lets get this conversation back on track, okay?
Joseph R Yungk said, “Centuries of harassment from a church based on someone’s own instincts with all the same needs as anyone else and they have no idea.”
From Merriam-Webster:
harass: 1 b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
By that definition, harassment is an action initiated by the harasser. Simply upholding centuries-old doctrines cannot be harassment, for it is not even an action. If what the Church is doing regarding same-sex “marriage” or homosexual “rights” is merely a reaction to something someone else is doing, then the Church could only be the one being harassed, not the one doing the harassing. If you think something the Church is doing in this realm is not a reaction to what someone else is doing, then please do show us what it is.
Instincts may affect one’s culpability in an act, but they don’t excuse the act, let alone justify the tyranny of recognizing an act as normal that clearly is not. I’m sure that those who have pedophilic attractions would say that their instincts and needs are just as strong as those experienced by people with same-sex attractions. Why should one be considered moral and the other not?
“Simply upholding centuries-old doctrines cannot be harassment, for it is not even an action.”
He actually thinks that gays have not been “annoyed persistently” or been put in “unpleasant or hostile situations uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct”.
I’ve had my life threatened a number of times by people who espouse your “church’s” dogma. I never “invited” this. The “church” has done everything from burning homosexuals at the stake to blaming their pedophile problem on homosexuality. All while people are trying to just live their lives.
I’d call every bit of that hostile and violent. It is not a livable situation if you want anything like a normal life.
What’s your “church’s” “excuse”.
Thank you for showing us once more the hypocrisy behind your “church’s” actions.
Joseph R Yungk said, “I’ve had my life threatened a number of times by people who espouse your “church’s” dogma. I never “invited” this.”
They may have espoused the Church’s dogma, but they weren’t acting in accordance with it. From the Catholic Catechism:
2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
—————-
“The “church” has done everything from burning homosexuals at the stake to blaming their pedophile problem on homosexuality.”
Of course the Church did not burn people at the stake for merely having same-sex attractions, and they very well may have identified a problem as largely a homosexual problem that was misidentified by others as strictly a pedophile problem.
Joseph R Yungk: You wrote “I don’t need to have anyone like you validate my belief system. “ You believe you can marry one who is the same sex as you and start a family. Is that not why you advocate for legal change? That is, if you do not need anyone like mk to validate your belief system, who is the State? Is it not true the people, like mk, are the State in a democracy? Are you arguing for oligarchy hoping that whom you pay will stay bought?
Joseph R Yungk: You wrote “I’ve had my life threatened a number of times by people who espouse your ‘church’s’ dogma.” That’s unfortunate. Mafia bookies are dangerous especially when they do not get paid. At least that is what I’m told.
Joseph R Yungk: We’ve been over the definition of the word “hypocrisy.” It is not a synonym for “inconsistent.” That word—inconsistent—is what you mean in context. Your arguments might be an iota more convincing by using words that match the context you are attempting to relay.
“Mafia bookies are dangerous especially when they do not get paid. “
I’m glad you compare your “church” with the mafia. This is why we have a bill or rights.
Thanks
My work here is done.
Joseph R Yungk wrote “My work here is done.” Nah Joseph. You love the attention we give you—we’re probably the only ones who listen. You’re not waiting for marriage laws to change; you’re waiting for someone to propose. I think you know Who Spoke.
Joseph,
You might not have anything else to say, but that is hardly the same thing as saying your “work” here is done. You have done no work. You have repeated the same 3 lines over and over, answered no questions, made false accusations time and again…Work? I don’t think so. A lazy man’s argument is more like it. We’ll meet again, I’m sure. Perhaps then you’ll be more prepared to actually join in. Peace.
Touche,
Thanks so much Joseph R Yungk, glad I followed. With all the claims of “answering no questions” and “false accusations” is still amazing in light of how they have admittedly at times been. Then to get this personal is outrageous.
Anyone still out there? Part 7 is now up.
Part 8 is now up.
Steven:
Throughout this series, I am struck by the discussion’s absolutist tone. I assume that your columns reflect the position of the Catholic Church on the issues that you write about.
Here are my problems with all this:
The main thing you seem to be assuming is that contraception is always immoral. And sinful. Here’s the problem with that…we live in a world in which contraception exists. Decisions are made, lives are ordered, and fates are determined, by this reality. You give us absolutely no guidance about how to deal with this reality except to say that it is an evil. Your approach reminds me of the “Just Say No” approach to the drug problem…as if such a pervasive reality could simply be opted out of. Even if I believed that contraception WAS actually the absolute evil that the Church thinks that it is, the fact would remain that I live in a world and a culture in which it is widely, almost universally, used. I’m single. I simply don’t meet women who would follow that dictate. None of the people I know, Catholic or non-Catholic, think that contraception is wrong. It could be that none of the people I know are truly Catholic. That merely makes the issue one of semantics, ultimately. That means that the Church is now much, much smaller than it appears to be.
I don’t go to Mass very often anymore, but I don’t think during the many years that I did go, I heard more than one or two sermons preached against contraception. Yet, so much of the Church’s message seems tied to this one issue. Why aren’t the priests preaching against abortion and contraception anymore? Could it be that there would simply be very few parishioners if they did? And then, where would the support for parish work come from? In other words, could the Church even exist in the USA if this were actually preached as a matter of routine? Isn’t this issue most of the reason that the use of the Sacrament of Penance declined more than 70% between the years 1970 and 1990?
(“Dynamic Catholicsm” by Thomas Bokenkotter, Doubleday, 1985, page 236.)
I wish I could be active in the Church. But, I haven’t felt welcome there for a long time. I can’t receive the Sacraments, because I don’t agree with the Church, and, as some of the commenters here suggest, if I don’t agree with the Church, then I’m not a Catholic. Fine.
It seems that the moment I had an independent thought, then, at that moment I ceased to be a Catholic.
Like your site, BTW.
@James A.—“I can’t receive the Sacraments, because I don’t agree with the Church, and, as some of the commenters here suggest, if I don’t agree with the Church, then I’m not a Catholic. Fine”.
I could be wrong and hope some would respond if that’s the case, but I have never read it anywhere by anyone from the church, no in the cathesim, that if I do not believe everything the church teaches that I’m not catholic. For instance, I have never been told to go to confession because I do not say the rosary and cannot receive the sacraments until I do. Many have told me that I’m misguided, but none have ever told me that I’m not catholic, they just argue how I’m wrong. I tell them that I only say prayers to God. If you wish to be active in the church try calling catholic charities or just set a good example in your own life. Start a bible study class in your home. Work with the youths. Don’t let others interfer with your independence, that’s who you are and what you bring to the table.
@MK—-“Are there any words, any words at all, whose definition you will not change”.
You know there’s not. But I’m so glad you continue to respond. your clarity is such a treasure and joy to read.
@Larry…good advice. But what about my point about confession? I do believe that the Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation) is not used as much as it was, and I do think that it’s because of Humanae Vitae. 1968 was a watershed year for the Church. It soon became obvious that the Church could DO nothing against people using contraceptives, and therefore, they (the laity) compartmentalized it. But, I consider that saying that I’m a Catholic and then saying that there are times when I think contraception is moral is simply hypocritical. I don’t want to get into the argument with the purists. I guess they are right…I can no longer call myself Catholic.
Take a look at the demographics of the Church. Nobody is having the big, big families anymore. It HAS to be because they are using contraception. There simply is no other explanation. My mother had nine kids, I’m the oldest. She was and is a practicing Catholic. But even she believes that it’s OK for married people to use contraception. I understand the Simcha Fisher is pregnant with her ninth child. Good for her, she sounds happy about it. But people like my mom and Simcha are very very few. Masses could be held in living rooms in private homes if only truly believing Catholics attended.
So what has happened? A terrible schism has developed. The Church officially teaches something that the laity rejects. The laity has decided something, and the clergy has decided something else. A true, true crisis. I have no idea how it will play out.
I have some practical ideas about how the scourge of abortion could be dealt with. I have some ideas about how some women could be persuaded to carry their babies to term and even keep them. But these ideas don’t involve campaigning to have abortion declared to be illegal. So, again, I can’t be involved, b/c I have my own ideas.
The problem I have is the schism that exists between the clergy and the laity. I haven’t gone to confession (Reconciliation) since 1976 for this reason too.
I am a believing Christian, even if I am denied burial, etc. I don’t worry anymore about these kinds of punishments that the Church would inflict, such as excommunication. I’m sad, though, that it all has come to this.
Jim
James, you aren’t the first one to ask these questions. In fact, Pope Paul VI himself asked the same things, as related in the encyclical Humanae Vitae:
”...if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.”
Since both you and Paul VI appear to have started with the same questions, yet you disagree with his conclusions, the only possibilities are that you take issue with the reasoning that led to those conclusions, or that you don’t fully understand that reasoning. Once you can convince yourself and the rest of us that you fully understand that reasoning, perhaps a more productive debate could be had. Here is a link to the full text of the encyclical for reference:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
@JamesA.—A couple things about confession. It’s not as significant part of reconcillation as it used to be. I believe the conversion part is more important. In my church they have confession at the church I go to once a month. Usually. Downtown, another church, we have to drive 30 miles and spend $10.00 for parking, it’s every weekend at specific times. I never go. We do not have a shortage of priests here. It does not seem that important to them. A good question, is taking birth control a mortal sin? Is abortion? Some people say that taking the Pill can cause abortions. The church Has to take a position. I think all churches do for that matter. Actually, it’s an easy question for you. You cannot get pregnant. Is using a condom a mortal sin? Is sex outside of marriage a mortal sin? Saying you believe contraceptives are moral does not make you a hypocrate. Saying they are imoral and doing it anyway would. Saying you do not agree with the church about everything they teach does not make you a hyprocrate. Again, saying you did agree then doing something different would. Your strugle with these issues are a normal part of life, and the church wants to be your guide. Part of Stevens point of the article is that The Pill has made the problem worse. I believe the skism you mention already existed before the Pill. But it also got worse after the Pill. If you read the whole article he covers significant ground and does a good job. You do not have to agree with all of it. Consider it food for thought. Don’t worry about the purist, let the first sinless one cast the first stone. In fact, consider the bible tells us to test everything, ask questions, speak your mind. that’s what catholics should do. How else can we find truth? about right now all the purist are screaming, YEA but the church has the last word. yea yea yea, I know.
@Kevin Rahe: You are correct. Pope Paul VI and I started with the same questions, and I disagree with his conclusions. I take issue with the reasoning that leads to those conclusions. I reject the idea that the only purpose of married sex, is to lead to procreation. Therefore, I am not Catholic.
I think that basically, there is a problem. What will happen, I don’t know. The laity have decided that contraception isn’t always evil, since they obviously are using it. The clergy, and, if you believe it, God, is teaching something else. These two views cannot be brought into relation to each other.
I have made a decision for myself that contraception is not wrong, therefore, I can’t be a part of the Catholic Church. I accept all of the consequences of this decision, in case you were wondering. I don’t receive the sacraments.
It is, by the way, somewhat patronizing to say that I don’t understand the document. I have reread the document on the link you gave me.
The only thing I can say is that I think that the Church is now much, much smaller than it used to be, at least here in the USA. You still have parishes, you still have priests, you still have an organization, you still do all of the valuable work that you do. But there is now a huge schism that has developed in the Church, and it’s merely a matter of semantics to say that it’s not a schism, it’s that people have left the Church. I think that Catholics DO understand the teaching, as do I. It’s just that they have rejected it.
I have ideas about these things. I reject the authority of the Church to decide these things for me. Here is the meat of the matter.
Jim
@James A. said, “I reject the idea that the only purpose of married sex, is to lead to procreation.”
I don’t agree that that is what Humanae Vitae says. In fact, I think it makes quite clear the Church’s teaching that married sex involves two aspects, both procreative and unitive. Saying that a thing has only one purpose is very different than saying that of a thing’s two purposes neither should be artificially excluded.
“12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” -Humanae Vitae
—
“The laity have decided that contraception isn’t always evil, since they obviously are using it.”
I don’t think that you can say that just because someone is “using it” that they automatically think a thing is not evil. You could say the same thing about drinking to excess, masturbation, gossiping, etc. If a thing is significant, and it’s not evil, then it must be good. If a significant number of Catholics thought that artificial contraception is objectively good (and you can’t argue that there aren’t plenty of candidates), more of them would be publicly promoting it among the faithful. But practically no one does, while there are plenty who are willing to speak publicly in support of Humanae Vitae.
—
“people have left the Church. I think that Catholics DO understand the teaching, as do I. It’s just that they have rejected it.”
Given the dearth of priests who will even bring up the topic in their parish, I don’t know on what basis you can claim that Catholics understand Humanae Vitae. From my perspective the only way to really understand Humanae Vitae is to join or form a group that is willing to explore it or do so on your own - as you have done. I would say that the majority of Catholics who do that end up agreeing with it. As for those who’ve supposedly rejected it, just what are they rejecting? What Humane Vitae is, or only what they think it is? From what many say, you would think that Humanae Vitae says that it’s not legitimate to want to avoid conceiving children at particular times, which is a total misunderstanding:
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” -Humanae Vitae
@Kevin: Of course I could never prove a thing like this, but I really don’t think that the majority of Catholics would end up agreeing with Humanae Vitae. Two reasons:
1. I think that their decisions are evidenced by their behavior, not what they believe is good or evil. Are you saying that most Catholics who use contraception think they are committing sins when they do use it? Then how do you explain the huge drop-off in confession (Reconciliation)? I refer you to Bokenkotter’s book for my stats on that.
2. The larger issue is one of leadership. Here we have a case where the laity has decided something. Wrong or right, the verdict is in. The reason that there is a dearth of priests willing to bring up the topic in their parishes is because there is the thorny issue of the priests’ dependence on the laity of the parish for thier support. Not just for the priests themselves, but they probably don’t want to jeapordize the work that they are doing, things like schools, hospitals, clinics, anti-drug programs, youth programs, Catholic Charities, etc. etc.
Can the Church lead on this issue? THIS is the crisis. I respectfully assert that it isn’t a matter of getting people to UNDERSTAND the issue. The basics of Humanae Vitae are not complex. The idea is that married sex between a husband and wife has only the two purposes that the Church says that it has. Unitive, and procreative. This excludes a large area of sexuality that simply does not fall within these criteria. Theorhetically, a husband and wife having sex that is not procreative, but unitive, such as oral sex or something like that would also fall under this rule. It would make sexuality an incredibly narrow thing, very broad in its misuse, very very narrow in its “chaste” expression, to take a word from the document itself.
I have rejected this. The idea that I don’t know what I’m doing seems at the bottom of your argument. As far as any kind of solutions go, I don’t know where we go from here. I have made a decision for myself, and I have listened to and rejected the teaching of the Church on an issue. I assert the moral right to decide these things for myself.
I have ideas about how some things like abortions could be dealt with, but I can’t buy the Church’s idea that it should be a criminal offense. This makes me “pro-choice”. But I don’t believe that abortion is moral. I just think it should be legal. It’s a political, not a legal or religious view.
I suppose you wonder why I would even bother to blog on this site…well, I do miss the Church, actually, the sense of belonging and tradition and meaning that I got from it. The price of admission is very high, however.
Gotta go now, would like to chat more.
Peace, Jim
@James A. said, “Are you saying that most Catholics who use contraception think they are committing sins when they do use it?”
I think that whether they think it is objectively wrong or not, they find its effects (at least those most popularly acknowledged) desirable and have justified its use in their own situation.
—
“Then how do you explain the huge drop-off in confession (Reconciliation)?”
Having done something that one feels obligated to confess due to the Church’s position on it yet not wanting to admit that it’s wrong since one has justified it in their own mind is certainly a deterrent to going to confession.
—
“Here we have a case where the laity has decided something. Wrong or right, the verdict is in.”
But the Church is all about what’s wrong or right, not who accepts what. If it was about accepting the verdict of the people, it would have ended when the people cried “Crucify him!” in Pilate’s praetorium.
—
‘Unitive, and procreative. This excludes a large area of sexuality that simply does not fall within these criteria. Theorhetically, a husband and wife having sex that is not procreative, but unitive, such as oral sex or something like that would also fall under this rule. It would make sexuality an incredibly narrow thing, very broad in its misuse, very very narrow in its “chaste” expression, to take a word from the document itself.’
While other sexual activity such as oral sex can be permitted as long as it’s part of a process that culminates in the one true act of sexual intercourse, your explanation is for the most part correct.
—
”...I have listened to and rejected the teaching of the Church on an issue. I assert the moral right to decide these things for myself.”
At best you and the Church are at the same level when it comes to being a moral authority. As for me, I wouldn’t trust a single person to determine what is right and what is wrong - not even (perhaps especially) myself. Either the premises and foundational reasoning found in Humanae Vitae is sound, or it is not. If it is sound, and if its conclusions logically follow from its premises and reasons, then its conclusions must be sound as well. You have not taken issue with any of its premises or reasoning, only its conclusions.
—
“I don’t believe that abortion is moral. I just think it should be legal. It’s a political, not a legal or religious view.”
That’s a bit ironic, since it is not because of politics - at least as it applies to the normal legislative process - that abortion is legal in this country today. Rather, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of disciplines allowed to inform abortion law beyond the science and medicine that led to the creation of the laws it undid to include religion and philosophy - specifically religious and philosophical positions that were authored before the advent of modern medical knowledge. In other words, the conclusions in Roe v. Wade are based largely on ancient ignorance.
It’s not at all clear why you think abortion should be legal. Some have suggested it should be legal because abortions will happen anyway. To that I say that Jews will be killed, just for being Jews, even if it’s not legal to kill them. With that realization, we should take steps to ensure that the killing of Jews happens in as orderly a fashion and with as little collateral damage as possible, should we not?
@-Kevin Rahe- Your saying that oral sex and other types of sex, Can be permitted as long as it ends in intercourse? Curious, is it a sin if it does not end that way? Is it a mortal sin? Does one need to go to confession?
@Larry, the Church grants a fair amount of leeway in the use of forms of stimulation that a couple might find helpful in achieving intercourse. There is a lot of reliance on a couple being honest with themselves in this regard. For example, if a form of stimulation makes it less rather than more likely that their activity will culminate in intercourse, then it should be avoided. And for some types of sexual activity, such as anal sex, it is difficult to imagine how they could be used as mere stimulation leading to intercourse and not primarily as an end in themselves, let alone questions about health and hygiene they might raise when used as a precursor to intercourse.
As to whether failure to achieve intercourse is a sin, or what degree of sin it is, that is largely a function of a couple’s intent, care and honesty.
@ Kevin R.- Thanks, you have almost answered my question. I’ll be more direct now. If the couple on a particular day only wants oral sex, is it a sin, and to what degree. Is it a mortal sin? Does one have to go to confession? As far as anal sex, well I promised I wouldn’t talk about poop anymore to S.T.G.
OOps—-That’s S.D.G…..
I’m sure there are those who are more studied in the Church’s teachings on these matters than I am and could likely offer a better answer, but I would say that a couple that engages in significant stimulation while being closed to the idea of letting it progress to full intercourse is at the very least playing with fire (i.e. the near occasion of sin). Whether a particular act constitutes a sin or what degree of sin it is (or even whether one spouse is guilty of sin while the other is not) depends on the circumstances, the results and the knowledge possessed by those involved. If a couple has any question about something they’ve done, the best advice I can give is to talk to a priest.
@Kevin R.—Thanks for responding honestly. How about birth control? Is it a sin, a mortal sin and does one have to go to confession if they use it for birth control and not some medical reason.
Part 9 is up.
Is taking birth control pills or comdom use a sin, is it a mortal sin and does one have to go to confession if they use it for birth control and not just some medical reason.
Anyone else know?
@Kevin Rahe:
There really isn’t a complex theological reason I don’t accept these teachings. I simply consider these issues my own business.
Perhaps others are willing to allow the Church into thier private lives, sexual or otherwise. For me, that’s in the past. I decide these issues for myself.
@Larry: This is what I think: You decide yourself whether or not it is a sin. Simple as that.
Jim
Thank you James: Anyone else? Or is it only a question for Priest?
@James:
Abortion is never any one person’s business, for there are always at least two viable individuals involved.
Kevin:
To respond to your answer of 11:06AM Tuesday, all I can say is that I can’t even imagine having that kind of thinking in a marriage. I’m not married, but to take every single sex act that a couple has, indeed, their entire sexual lives together, the sexual and romantic and spiritual relationship, and to subject it to the question, testing whether “Is this act open to procreation?” is not something I can even imagine. It’s not my understanding of what marriage is. In my own understanding of what marriage is, I think that the parameters of the relationship are for the couple to work out themselves.
I can’t imagine any woman I’ve ever known to have such a view of marriage. It’s as if a couple, weary with the demands of children, work, worry, etc., still couldn’t sinlessly enjoy something like oral sex between each other. In their own bedroom. A married couple.
I think I shouldn’t bother you anymore Kevin, with my blogs. The distance between our views seems so vast, just too much.
Bye for now. Peace.
James A.
@James A. said:
To be honest, that’s not a question I or my wife have ever asked ourselves. We simply see that the purpose of the sexual faculties - aside from procreation - is to give pleasure to our spouse. There is only one act in which such giving of pleasure is possible, and we know that it involves the possibility of procreation. In fact, that’s the reason it’s pleasurable.
Kevin Rahe: “There is only one act in which such giving of pleasure is possible” Knowing what you want and agreeing with your spouse without even having to talk about it is truly a great thing. James makes a good point when pointing out whether a couple should talk to a priest about what kind of sex is permissable in a marriage etc. The church teaches their view but theirs is not a cookie cutter version thats good for all couples in all sitituations. Even you cannot say whether it is a sin or not for certain things. If I asked you whether abortion is a sin you would think I was crazy for even asking such a thing. I have read no where where this is considered a sin which means it is allowed. I am surprised given the scope of this article and all the great points Steven D.G. makes concerning the damage the Pill in particular has done to society and marriages that no one will answere my question about whether taking the pill is a sin, or a mortal sin. If someone has answered it on a previous page I apologize.
@Kevin—-Forget the question I found the answere. Oral sex can be a mortal sin, the pill and condoms are both mortal sins.
“The basic churchs stand is if a man wants to have an orgasm, it must be in the womans vagina”.
No exceptions, it’s the cookie cutter version for everyone for all occasions. I am puzzeled by this, and have never and will never follow this teaching. Interesting. I am married, have kids, but now I have to tell my wife were going to hell because I guarantee you we will not confess this mortal sin as we do not agree it is. LOL
@Larry…if the paragraph you quoted IS the case, then I don’t know why I bother with the CC. It’s simply so, so far from what I believe. The trouble is, parish priests don’t DARE say this. The pews, and the collections, would be empty…This is what I meant by the term “schism”.
@James: This is where I got the info from: http://thecatholicletter.com/birth-control-abortion-article-subjects-40/100-the-catholic-birth-control-a-sex-faq#9
I agree with you on this the pews would be empty. I feel your pain
@James: I hear where your coming from. I wonder, If the church will not share this from the pulpit to their menmbers, is this a sin of omission? Then knowing the gravity of all these issues involved their refusal to teach, does it become a mortal sin for the church? I can tell you, members of the same church will definitely start deciding everything for themselves once this happens. The schism you refered to. I tried to give you the link where I got the information from, but the site will not let me. Try googling—-catholicletter faq#9
Perhaps the answer can be found by focusing on the origin and the relationship between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and the role played by pleasure in both. The origin of the procreative aspect is of course mere biology - whether or not you believe that that biology was designed by God. From a biological standpoint, sex is pleasurable merely so that procreation occurs often enough to maintain the existence of our species. (This is in contrast to procreation in other species, where if there is pleasure involved it is rarely strong enough to result in sexual activity outside those periods in which procreation is likely, but that’s an aside.)
The origin (or at least the modern keeper) of the idea that sex has a unitive aspect at all seems to be almost entirely the Catholic Church. It is at least a man-made idea, if divinely inspired. In that sense it parallels marriage itself. Pleasure is part of the unitive aspect of sex, just as much as if not more than it is part of the procreative aspect. I think the relevant question is, can pleasure resulting from something like oral sex - which is clearly not procreative - be considered unitive? Or is it something completely outside the bounds of what the Catholic Church recognizes as legitimate aspects of sex? “Unite” means to “to put together to form a single unit,” or “to become one or as if one.” Normal sexual intercourse certainly fits that definition. It is difficult to see how oral or manual sex could, for there is no clear complementarity on which a union could be based. Not only that, but such sex is equally possible regardless of the gender of those involved - meaning that not only is procreation from the act itself impossible, but the act is equally valid between a couple for whom procreation is impossible in any fashion. I’m not sure how you could expect to Church to stretch that far.
@Larry: I saw the site, “The Catholic Letter”. Wow. I had no idea so much of sex was sin, nearly everything.
Well, at least this blog has answered the question I had originally. I am so, so not a Catholic. I could NEVER live under such a regime. Never.
I don’t know how authoritative all this is. I never hear any priests talking this way, but I suppose they are supposed to. Everyone who I know who practices Catholicism does not even come close to following these precepts. As a practical plan, the ideas of the “Catholic Letter” simply seem impossible. It sounds like something out of a dark and distant past, medieval.
Best to you and Kevin. This gives me some sadness, but also some relief. I am assuming that the Church is in a terrible schism right now, between the hierarchy, who run these blogs and the Catholic Letter website, and the laity and the parish priests. Denial by both sides of the situation can only delay the inevitable.
I predict a much, much smaller Church in the future, either that, or some softening of these unworkable precepts. Either one, but not both.
James A.
@James: Good luck to you also, and thanks for posting here. You brought up some really good points. If the church has an opinion on something it’s worth talking about. I tried talking about this some on page 9 but the silence is defning. I guess no one but SDG wants to discuss it.
Larry and James, I pray that someday you may know the freedom that comes from abiding by the Church’s teaching in these matters (which is important not because it comes from the Church but because it is true). This freedom is expressed best by G.K. Chesterton:
-@Kevin—Thanks for the prayers I never turn those down, but I know freedom for sure. Somehow I have always been more in sink with kosher view of sex that R.C.. I appreciate the church has to take a stand on these things. Mostly I believe their correct. Their views on sex is very close to kosher sex. Jewish teaching just seems much simpler. No where have I found that they teach an orgasm by a man outside the vagina is a mortal sin. I think my sticking point is I believe a man and woman can be open to procreation but it is not a hell suffering event if they choose not to THIS time. Maybe it’s just a playful time, no pressure. You have stated your belief, I completely disagree. This to is probably a mortal sin because it’s not in line with church teaching.
@Kevin: You always will have that trump card: “because it is true.” “Because God says so”. No real conversation is possible then, because you insert that at any given point, and it’s all over. Islam and Mormonism, to name just two religions, also use that to say anything they want. Suppose I were a Muslim or a Mormon, trying to determine which version of “it’s true” is the one to follow, how would you respond?
@Larry: Great. Follow your conscience, as do I.
@James: When I say that something is valid “because it is true,” it is because it can be recognized as true by anyone, not because it comes from some authority. (Which is what I meant to imply by my original comment - I guess I wasn’t clear.) That doesn’t mean that everyone always has the capacity to recognize it as true, nor does it mean that some won’t recognize it as true but reject it anyway because it is undesirable, inconvenient or is spoken by some authority they prefer to avoid.
The ways you describe aren’t Jesus’ way. It is as if you ignore His coming and handle things as human beings who don’t believe He exists. He changed the way things were done and shaming wasn’t part of His teaching. Sad to see this supported by a correspondent of the National Catholic Register.
@ Pam: St. Paul seems not to have gotten the memo against shaming (see 1 Cor. 6:5, 15:34).
Part 10 is now up.
Steven Greydanus, There is no correlation between St. Paul’s comments and the behavior you are advocating. St.Paul directly addressed an issue he heard about with the Corinthians. He confronted them through his correspondence with the teachings of Christ to show them why their way of thinking or actions were in error. He did not “shame” them. He told them how far from the ways of Christ they were and how that knowledge make them feel ashamed. That’s very different. He did not act on people without ascertaining the facts and letting his position or feelings be known. Christ and all his followers go out of their way to reach out to the sinner, not shame them. Christ ate with Matthew and the tax collectors and gave us the story of the prodigal son. He could have sneered or embarrassed or shamed them all but instead he showed them a father pacing and waiting with great longing for a son to return. The woman caught in adultery was being shamed when Christ halted it by drawing in the sand and asking the one without sin to cast the first stone. When everyone left He chose to speak to the woman directly and tell her not to sin anymore. He didn’t leave her guessing. This judgmental shaming is a grave sin (no one knows anothers heart and we are warned again and again not to judge) and is often based on gossip, another sin, and destroys love and unity. Who would want to be part of a group that dumps on the lost? It is NOT God’s way. It may be man’s way, but it is NOT God’s. There are actions that society should disprove of. How we show that disapproval matters. Christians look for an opening to talk to the person or welcome them to some occasion where the person can see things from a holier perspective.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.