Same-sex marriage in Australia

[Forever trying]

Hi everyone,

Hopefully I'm not breaking forum rules with this link, but some of you may be aware that the Labor Party in Australia (like the Democrats in the US politically), are preparing a bill for our parliament to legalise same-sex marriage. Our current Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is actually a staunch Catholic, and has said he's against it, but the constitution doesn't stop the political opposition party putting such a bill forward for vote. The media here would have you think that an easy majority of the population want same-sex marriage legal. However, this isn't the case. I'm attaching a link to a poll on "Ninemsn" which is the major MSN new site for Australia, that is running a poll on this matter. Since yesterday nearly 500,000 people have voted (keep in mind we're a population of 23 million). So it is a burning topic for us here at the moment. Up until this morning, 55% of people who voted were against same-sex marriage. This afternoon this has seen an unfortunate turn around. Anyway, I know that most of you aren't Australians, but if you do get a chance, and want to at least help skew these figures so our politicians understand it isn't a clear majority who want it legalised, that would be appreciated. After all, I'm sure there's people from overseas who've voted on this to legalise it anyway.

Moderators, sorry if this is against the rules, and I know this is a conflicting topic. But this is such an important issue for us here right now. And the political party advocating it point to what's happened in places such as Ireland, Canada and the US as a reason for us to legalise same-sex marriage too.

Bless you all.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...u-readers-have-their-say-on-same-sex-marriage

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Forever trying,

I agree with you that this is a very evil thing that is happening to Australia (and nearly all western countries). Unfortunately, there is a large portion of Catholics who support so-called "same-sex marriage" in open protest against the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. So if posting here influences the poll numbers it might not be in the direction that you had hoped. The phenomenon of so-called "same-sex marriage" spreading like wildfire around the world is a sign of the rebellion that Jesus said would happen prior to His Second Coming. Although Satan seems to be winning he knows that his time is short.

 

[MikeK]

Why do you want non-Australians to come and skew the poll results? I would be asking for a more controlled, more useful poll that better communicated the desires of the country.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Why do you want non-Australians to come and skew the poll results? I would be asking for a more controlled, more useful poll that better communicated the desires of the country.

Perhaps it is because forever trying doesn't want Australia to give in to evil. Although the means is questionable, the intention is understandable, at least from an orthodox Christian point of view.

 

[MikeK]

Perhaps it is because forever trying doesn't want Australia to give in to evil. Although the means is questionable, the intention is understandable, at least from an orthodox Christian point of view.

Your reasoning is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. You have much to learn about moral theology, as evidenced by your frequent justification of evil that good may come. You displayed it in thrrads about human torture, you've displayed it when appologizing for Putin's nuclear sabre rattling, and you're heading down that same road again.

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

- the object chosen;

- the end in view or the intention;

- the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Armoured]

Perhaps it is because forever trying doesn't want Australia to give in to evil. Although the means is questionable, the intention is understandable, at least from an orthodox Christian point of view.

Yeah, that democracy stuff. What's with that? People voting for what they think they want rather than what you tell them they want. Crazy.

 

[ebia]

Our current Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is actually a staunch Catholic, and has said he's against it,

A Catholic who says his religion doesn't determine his politics, and who's behavior on more important matters backs that up.

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON

Thread moved from OBOB to OBOB Politics.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[pdudgeon]

Your reasoning is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. You have much to learn about moral theology, as evidenced by your frequent justification of evil that good may come. You displayed it in thrrads about human torture, you've displayed it when appologizing for Putin's nuclear sabre rattling, and you're heading down that same road again.

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

- the object chosen;

- the end in view or the intention;

- the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

and you are quoting from?????? a source would help here...

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Your reasoning is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. You have much to learn about moral theology, as evidenced by your frequent justification of evil that good may come. You displayed it in thrrads about human torture, you've displayed it when appologizing for Putin's nuclear sabre rattling, and you're heading down that same road again.

Those are some wildly wrong straw man accusations against me. I never said that I was for torture. I think you are confusing me with something someone else said. You tend to lump all conservatives together.

I remember saying that it's wrong to blame all conservatives for whatever happened with waterboarding when 99.999% of us had no idea it was going on when it was happening. It was something that was kept a secret from the public and was never up for a vote. Therefore your average conservative could not have ever knowingly voted for it. Only a handful of people actually had a hand in it. When you showed me that the bishops had come out against it I accepted what they said.

I never said that I was for a nuclear war between the United States and Russia. In fact, I said that it was crazy to provoke Russia since it could lead to a nuclear war. Obama has been doing just as much sabre rattling as Putin, except that Obama was the first to do the sabre rattling.

And please read my post again but more closely since I didn't justify any evil. I only said that his intention not to have evil win fits with orthodox Christianity. I didn't say that he was going about it the right way. That's why I said that the way he was going about it is questionable.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

and you are quoting from?????? a source would help here...

He's quoting from the Catechism, but his accusations against me are false.

 

[pdudgeon]

He's quoting from the Catechism, but his accusations against me are false.

agreed that his quotes are from the catechism, but posted as it is, it is against the CF rules--something that every member here has to follow,
including him, and something that should have been caught by the mods in the thread move.

quote from the CF rules: "...All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the web page from which it was taken. "

 

[MikeK]

From an orthodox Christian point of view, questionable means are not allowed to pursue desired ends.

The USA has not sent nuclear-armed bombers toward any country's airspace in decades. That is sabre rattling, and we no longer play that game. Putin does.

 

[Supreme]

MOD HAT ON

Thread is being closed.

MOD HAT OFF