Very well said.
That is absolutely true.
With marriage just being a fancy way of going steady, much of the arguments against same sex marriage won’t gain much traction, especially among non-Catholics.
No, there is a difference between being legal and being right. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The law cannot change the truth.
You are presenting, in simplified form, the concept of natural law which the Church holds to be universal and applying to all people. All people, however, including me, do not accept it. In my view that is why some Catholics come up with other reasons to oppose things they think breach natural law. So to defend the stance on contraception, some will argue about the need for higher populations for national defence. To defend the stance on abortion some will argue that an embryo feels pain. To defend the stance on homosexual sex some will argue that there is an increased chance of infection. None of there arguments have anything to do with natural law, or the end not justifying the means - the premises at the base of Catholic thought. I am just suggesting that Catholics argue their real position. You ask if I ‘assert otherwise’ than that homosexual marriage is not ‘ordered to a good end’. I do not accept that things are ‘ordered towards ends’ so there is no need for me to ‘assert otherwise’. Again, Catholics should accept that while they think their understanding of the world and morality applies to all of us, all of us in fact do not share that view. I am here seeking to understand that view and your comments have helped. Thank you.
Faith is belief seeking understanding. I can’t remember who first said that, but it shapes a worldview.
As a Catholic, I accept Church teachings as a starting point, and then I try to understand them. There are things that don’t make sense to me, but I accept them first and then try to understand them. I don’t reject until I decide to accept.
This is not really natural law, it’s sane observation of the world around us. I happen to like science, and science is based on observation.
And any observer can see that children aren’t hatched out of eggs, they are the product of the union of a man and woman.
It’s like if you said you don’t accept that the earth revolves around the sun. The proper response to that would be “you’re nuts”.
I have to ask, what part of this do you “not accept”?
Very well said.
I do not accept that your opinion as to what is ‘good’, ‘sacred’ and ‘ordered’ is anything you have observed. They are conclusions others have drawn and you have accepted as a matter of faith. That is not science. You might be right. But it is not science. Please stop asking the confrontation; question “What part of this…”. That’s not a part of the Catholic tradition of discussion, even with non-believers.
That’s because few gay couples obtain a marriage licence in the first place. Divorce proceedings can’t occur without marriage papers in the first place.
Just 20 percent of Dutch homosexual couples are married, compared with 80 percent of heterosexual couples, fresh figures by Statistics Netherlands show.
But that doesn’t mean Marcel’s claim “they do at a much higher rate” is correct. He provides no references to back his claim.
This is something mass media has distorted. The fact is there has never been any real causal evidence out there.
An opinion has existed for many years that, on the average, married persons live longer than those who are single, and particularly that married men live longer than single men; but it has been rather difficult to secure data to establish this conclusion.
In fact, there have been studies that show single people live longer than married people.
I think the evidence points to marital status as having nothing to do with one’s life expectancy. In fact, a lot of medical studies on topics popular with news editors contradict each other. My favourite is wine. It’ll extend your life you’re told you one week, then the next week your told it shortens it.
Please don’t embarrass yourself with your ignorance and tired anti-Christian talking points.
For multiple spouses, yes, that was something God tolerated (along with other unfortunate things) but was not the original design, which was one man and one woman. Not boy or girl. Anyone who bothers reading it carefully will notice this. And the Pauline epistles reinforce the original design for marriage.
It’s not a confrontational question. It’s a simple question that furthers discussion and I’m not sure why you are avoiding it.
Where do we disagree below?
Do you not agree with the accepted science that human beings require a man and woman to be?
Maybe you don’t agree that it is good to exist? In that case I am sorry for you.
Let’s find some consensus.
Where do we disagree…
How creative to attack the Bible like this.
Why don’t you re-read what you wrote and what you were responding to?
The post you were replying to didn’t say anything about gays ruining anything. Only you took it that way, and in response, you were claiming the Christian view is an endorsement on those things, which is a typical anti-Christian talking point.
Science? What science would this be?
Why deny a child the natural right to have a father and a mother?
That is not progress.
No. But just because bad family situations exist doesn’t mean a less desirable situation is now right.
Here it is:
The fact that it takes a man and a woman to create a child is just an inconvenience of nature, then.
Men and women are inherently different, are they not? Different yet complimentary?