Pope Francis on Gay "marriage"

[Erose]

I think issue is going to be pretty much has been happening already. Cohabitating couples are no longer getting married. Europe is a good example of that . Most people just move in together and have children together, and never tie the knot. That is becoming the new norm in Europe. As people move a way from religion marriage ceases to be an institution that is considered important.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that within the next 50 years the only folks getting married will be those who take their religion seriously.

 

[SolomonVII]

There are innumerable issues and errors in that, but since they've already been through....

If you feel that way, you are perfectly entitled not to get married.

The modernist liberal attitude is basically one that comes from a selfish and narcissitic point of view. 'If it does not have anything to do with my marriage, then so what?!!' defines that narcissism that inevitably comes into the discussion. A discussion about marriage does not revolve around my personal marriage, or yours, or anyone else's. To make the argument about one's own marital status is an argument from narcissism.
The conservative case that I have previously been making is quite different than the libertarian argument against state interference that I am now making.

Liberals are as free as they always are to pretend that they are actually dealing with my arguments with their coy little quips and vague, unsubstantiated opinions that they pretend actually have substance, but to say that anyone has dealt with the new position that I am now taking in the post quoted is nothing but a lie.

 

[SolomonVII]

I think issue is going to be pretty much has been happening already. Cohabitating couples are no longer getting married. Europe is a good example of that . Most people just move in together and have children together, and never tie the knot. That is becoming the new norm in Europe. As people move a way from religion marriage ceases to be an institution that is considered important.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that within the next 50 years the only folks getting married will be those who take their religion seriously.

Cohabitation is the new norm for Europe. Single parent families with absentee fathers is the new norm for inner city life in America, indeed if the father is known at all. Those trends will continue as marriage loses more any sense of gravitas that it has had in the past.
Marriage laws have been designed for an age when the procreative family was something that was believed in, and the expectation was the permanence of the bond between the procreating couple, sustaining each other and their family throughout their lives. Marriage laws thus do not really address the issue of brokenness being the norm, and the multitude of relationships that come into the fore when the nuclear family no has longer has mother, father, child as the norm that the state once found was in its interests to support through marriage laws as they exist now.

 

[ebia]

The modernist liberal attitude is basically one that comes from a selfish and narcissitic point of view. 'If it does not have anything to do with my marriage, then so what?!!' defines that narcissism that inevitably comes into the discussion. A discussion about marriage does not revolve around my personal marriage, or yours, or anyone else's. To make the argument about one's own marital status is an argument from narcissism.

Sorry, but that is all empty rhetoric.

The conservative case that I have previously been making is quite different than the libertarian argument against state interference that I am now making.

If you really think civil marriages are now irrelevant then it follows that you won't engage in them or concern yourself with them.
I'll believe people actually believe their own rhetoric when you/the Catholic Church and/or individuals stop engaging in them.

Liberals are as free as they always are to pretend that they are actually dealing with my arguments with their coy little quips and vague, unsubstantiated opinions that they pretend actually have substance, but to say that anyone has dealt with the new position that I am now taking in the post quoted is nothing but a lie.

It's not my fault if most of your new argument looks like a vague version of your old one b

 

[MikeK]

Civil gay marriage should be opposed, much as so-called remarriage without death or anullment should, or non-married couples raising children, or single parent homes should be. We have a long way to go, but if we as Christians lead by our examples - raising what are without a doubt clearly better children by every metric, the world will notice. Let us be even more compassionate, even more charitable, even more educated, even more generous. We can complain about them or we can make us more appealing.

 

[RDKirk]

You are missing what really happened. It has nothing to do with SSM in all reality. Quite frankly from the info gained from country's such as Holland and Canada, only about 5% of homosexuals get married. So when you figure that only 1 to 2% of the population is homo- or bi-sexual, the number really is insignificant. It is the REDEFINING of the term marriage that is the problem. What the courts have done is redefine marriage as a state licensed romantic relationship. It really is nothing more than that now in the eyes of the law.

So the question that needs to be raised, is If that is all the state recognizes marriage to be, why now should the state really care about marriage any longer? In all reality the state should get out of the marriage business altogether now.

And hurray if they do. You Catholics don't recognize nearly half of state-legal marriages anyway. It should not be a great step for you to move completely away from reliance on the state's support for your own definition of marriage.

 

[RDKirk]

Civil gay marriage should be opposed, much as so-called remarriage without death or anullment should, or non-married couples raising children, or single parent homes should be. We have a long way to go, but if we as Christians lead by our examples - raising what are without a doubt clearly better children by every metric, the world will notice. Let us be even more compassionate, even more charitable, even more educated, even more generous. We can complain about them or we can make us more appealing.

Yes, this 100x. We don't have any light shining before men that they might see our good works--and well-running marriages would be a primary good work.

 

[Erose]

I agree. I think that we as Catholics, and for that matter all Christians, should take this as a wakeup call. We should use this as motivation to re-catechize our parishes on the Sacrament of Marriage, and the importance of the family to Christianity.

Does anyone else find it no coincident that the Synod on the Family is coming right on the heels of this new redefining of marriage?

 

[SolomonVII]

And hurray if they do. You Catholics don't recognize nearly half of state-legal marriages anyway. It should not be a great step for you to move completely away from reliance on the state's support for your own definition of marriage.

Assuredly, Catholic do not rely on the state to define what marriage is. We are however affected by the state backing one failed social experiment after another, just like everybody else is.
Catholics, like everybody else, live in a pluralistic society, and only the dwindling population of monks and nuns sequester themselves away from the larger society. The larger society in the age of mass media and internet literally inundate us, and our children. We are not immune from the effects, any more than anybody else is.
If we do not put our values out in the public square, who will?

 

[SolomonVII]

It is extreme selfishness for liberals to advocate values when they themselves live successfully by the values that the Catholic Church and conservatives advocate for marriage.
"As long as me and my own are able to get by, the rest of the world can do what it wants" is the ultimate in irresponsibility when it comes to public policy.
People, and young people need direction, and they need parameters that will be able to guide them to successful lives.

 

[ebia]

Assuredly, Catholic do not rely on the state to define marriage. We are however affected by the state backing one failed social experiment after another, just like everybody else is.
Catholics, like everybody else, live in a pluralistic society, and only the dwindling population of monks and nuns sequester themselves away from the larger society. The larger society in the age of mass media and internet literally inundate us, and our children. We are not immune from the effects, any more than anybody else is.
If we do not put our values out in the public square, who will?

How seriously would you take a muslim arguing on the basis of the quran that the law should enforce polygamous arranged marriages?

If you want to be heard in the public square you need a secular argument. "Because our religion says so" isn't going to influence people who have rejected your religion.

 

[RDKirk]

How seriously would you take a muslim arguing on the basis of the quran that the law should enforce polygamous arranged marriages?

If you want to be heard in the public square you need a secular argument. "Because our religion says so" isn't going to influence people who have rejected your religion.

Or...you can show the evidence that your concept of marriage actually works.

 

[ebia]

Or...you can show the evidence that your concept of marriage actually works.

Precisely. But that requires making it work.

 

[SolomonVII]

How seriously would you take a muslim arguing on the basis of the quran that the law should enforce polygamous arranged marriages?

If you want to be heard in the public square you need a secular argument. "Because our religion says so" isn't going to influence people who have rejected your religion.

I would take the Muslim a lot more seriously that I would a cynical leftist, who would be the last to stand up against anything that a Muslim advocates for our society.
As misogynistic as polygamous society is, it at least is not anywhere near pathetic and parasitic as the relationship that the left now has with the societies that they are sucking dry.
Liberals ought to be the ones in the forefront advocating for marriage that ties men to the women that sire their children, and that are based in the equality of monogamy.
Instead, it is conservatives who stand against the institution of polygamy. which is a throwback to the times of the neanderthal.
Instead, they leave the fighting against the misogyny of polygamy to conservatives, whom they instinctively know have no use for such versions of marriage either.

 

[ebia]

I would take the Muslim a lot more seriously that I would a cynical leftist, who would be the last to stand up against anything that a Muslim advocates for our society.
As misogynistic as polygamous society is, it at least is not anywhere near pathetic and parasitic as the relationship that the left now has with the societies that they are sucking dry.
Liberals ought to be the ones in the forefront advocating for marriage that ties men to the women that sire their children, and that are based in the equality of monogamy.
Instead, it is conservatives who stand against the institution of polygamy. which is a throwback to the times of the neanderthal.
Instead, they leave the fighting against the misogyny of polygamy to conservatives, whom they instinctively know have no use for such versions of marriage either.

Way to completely avoid the question and rant about the questioner instead.

 

[SolomonVII]

How seriously would you take a muslim arguing on the basis of the quran that the law should enforce polygamous arranged marriages?

If you want to be heard in the public square you need a secular argument. "Because our religion says so" isn't going to influence people who have rejected your religion.

Catholics can and do make the secular argument. The cyncical left does everything that it can to drown those arguments out, for their is agenda is against marriage, and has been since the sexual revolution of the 1970's.
In a Catholic forum, of course we turn to the Church and the Bible for insights, and for our efforts, our fellow co-religionists scoff and sneer and guffaw, as if religion is the stupidest and most inane and most illogical things that a Christian could ever bring to an argument.

 

[SolomonVII]

Way to completely avoid the question and rant about the questioner instead.

Look in the mirror, ebia.
I answered your coy and leading question.
I would take that misogynistic Muslim more seriously than I would take the leftist. At least the Muslim is operating from a centre of values, however neanderthal, while the leftist is operating from a complete void of any values.
Successful liberals live by the same set of values as conservatives advocate.
And yet rather than protecting women to ensure that polygamy does not gain a foothold in our society, they redefine marriage so that it will be difficult to ever fight against that kind of arrangement, on the grounds of personal fulfillment between consenting adults. That is the new definition of marriage in America, because of the parasitic, cancerous left has redefined it to be so. The tumor of polygamy now has a culture which will foster it and allow it to spread.

It is the ultimate selfishness of post-modern leftism that they cannot even take a stand against these relics of a misogynist past, but instead mock conservatives, who they instinctively know will make that kind of stand.

 

[MikeK]

I do get out in the public square. I am known in my city for being active in civic projects and youth sports. I sit on Church advisory boards where we focus on social justice issues in our community and how we can be better neighbors and really serve our fellow man. I taught religious education for several years and hosted a Christian men's group at a bar open to anyone interested in sitting in. My wife is known to the community and our children are active in...seemingly everything. My wife and I are among a few young couples who meet with and mentor engaged couples. I wish I could say that my fellow Church members were quick to hop at opportunities to sign up and give their weeknights to the Church nor the betterment of all of us, but they aren't. We get the same handful of decent people signing up for everything, while the majority (including the most vocally political) are content to bemoan the State of the world. There is a lot more that Inshould be doing. We can turn this thing around, but only by giving of ourselves.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I think Catholics (and for that matter most Christians) fall into two camps. Those who believe that we have a mandate to bring Christ to the world, and to help Him redemn the world; while the other camp believes that our faith is a private thing and should stay that way.

One camp loves the truth and believes that the Church should evangelize the world, and the other camp hates truth and believes that the Church should be evangelized by the world. It's the sheep vs. the goats.

 

[SolomonVII]

One camp loves the truth and believes that the Church should evangelize the world, and the other camp hates truth and believes that the Church should be evangelized by the world. It's the sheep vs. the goats.

Sheep vs goats, or worse, wolves in sheeps clothing ravaging the sheep.

I don't think that Erose's original post on that need be seen as all black and white though.
There is a lot to be said for people who see their faith as a personal and meditative affair, and seek to change the world through changing themselves. Ultimately this is the only way to change the world for the better.
Deeply religious people in Europe however, now see the fruits of that withdrawal, after it is too late. The message of the world is much more exciting and has more appeal to their youth, and the example of a good and Christian life can be too staid and stolid to have much appeal.
And the ways of the world and the pleasures it has to offer are highly addictive. The tastes of the flesh indelibly change the psyche of a young person forever.