So said Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan. He was talking to the less-than-eternal and somewhat attractive George Stephanopoulos, who naturally asked him about same-sex marriage. The answer:
“Well, the first thing I’d say to them is, ‘I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness. And – and we – we want your happiness. But – and you’re entitled to friendship.’ But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that – especially when it comes to sexual love – that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally,” Dolan said. “We got to be – we got to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that. We try our darndest to make sure we’re not an anti-anybody.”I wonder if a solution could be for the government to recognize same-sex marriages, so that gay people aren't deprived of any of the legal rights, and the religious people who think God has proscribed gay sex could simply view these gay couples as friends and stop thinking about what they might be doing sexually. Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing? Even where you don't think sex is a sin — for example, where a married man and woman engage in fully loving sexual intercourse — isn't it wrong to pry into another couple's sexual interaction? Why not back off and concentrate on doing your darndest to make sure you're not anti-anybody?
ADDED: Remember that Jesus said:
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.
Posts
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215It is not bigotry, no matter what your friends on the far left may believe.
None of us are wholly spiritual. We are all sexual creatures, and have sexual feelings. And there are sexual norms. And, no shock here, sexual norms are determined by the people who are reproducing. Thus heterosexuality is the norm, and all other sexual behavior is not.
The religious determination that marriage is one man and one woman is, I believe, a determination that this is the best way to raise children.
Thus there can be (and are) moral and logical justifications for being opposed to gay marriage, or polygamy.
But it's also true that people have sexual desires and points of view. And this can subjectively color your outlook about other people's sexual desires and points of view.
Marriage involves religion (always has), and so religious people have strong opinions on what marriage is, and what marriage should be.
But marriage also involves sex! And so the gay marriage debate involves a lot of feelings about sex, and the way sex should be, and also a lot of repression about sex. And sex, I believe, leads to a lot of intense emotion, some of which might be characterized as irrational.
One thing we have not really discussed in the gay marriage debate is the raising of children.
If gay marriage is a legal right, then gay men can adopt children, and lesbians can adopt children.
And you cannot discriminate. Gay couples have the same right to adopt as everybody else.
In effect you are reducing men and women to units. As long as a child has two parental units, it does not matter what their sexes are. You don't have a father? Doesn't matter. You don't have a mother? No big deal. As long as you have two parental units, you're good to go.
Of course technology now allows gay people to reproduce. A lesbian can buy sperm and get pregnant, and her partner can adopt. Is there a father? Does he have any legal duties, or rights? Does the child need a father?
Two gay men can contract with a woman to bear the child of one of them. And the other man can adopt. Is there a mother? Does she have any legal duties, or rights? Does the child need a mother?
Are we going to answer these questions, or even think about them?
"wonder if a solution could be for the government to recognize same-sex marriages, so that gay people aren't deprived of any of the legal rights,"
But Gays SHOULD be "deprived of the legal rights" of marriage.
1: Unless and until you can prove that same sex "marriages" are, on average as beneficial to society as are normal marriages, it is irrational and wrong to give them the rewards that society gives to normal marriages.
2: One of those "legal rights' is access to "anti-discrimination" laws. Should a Christian wedding photographer why refuses to do same sex "weddings" be subject to those laws? Yes? Then you've just illustrated an excellent reason to fight against same sex "marriages."
Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing?
===================
Yes Ann, that must be a sin on the tablet that broke on the way down the mound. Only really wise law profs are privy to such info.
The problem with quoting the "judge not" passage as an absolute prohibition is that the very next verse, within the same paragraph no less, says, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine . . ." Surely, Jesus must expect us to make some sort of judgment to determine who might be dogs or who might be swine. I am not saying that these are gay people, nor does Jesus. Within the context it refers to those who simply will not respond to the biblical message, those with whom we simply shouldn't waste our breath. I'm a little surprised that a law professor would not be more sensitive to the full context of a text. That would seem to be a very basic interpretive principle.
The point about not judging other people is about exactly that, judging other people, it is about making subjective judgments about the state of the soul of another person. It has absolutely nothing to do with determining as an objective matter whether a given act or thought is consistent or not with moral truth and love.
Indeed, we have an obligation to make such objective moral determinations. Intentionally killing innocent people is objectively morally wrong. We can and should make such moral "judgments" concerning that. Whether or not a person is guilty of murder, and what is the consequence of his having committed murder, are completely separate questions. And it is this latter subjective determination that we should not be making ourselves, but should be leaving it to the one that is the judge.
In our civil society, that one to whom such subjective judgments are assigned is a judge and jury. With respect to the state of someone's soul are a result of committing such an immoral act, the judge is Christ. And His criteria for judgment is Himself, namely, since He is Love and He is Truth, the standard of judgment is love and truth.
One of the functions of the Church is the Magisterium (which is from the Latin for "teacher"), whereby the Church determines as an objective matter the moral licitness of a given act. This is an objective determination. Now, of course, for those who reject the concept of truth, for those relativists who have embraced the idea that we can create our own truth, they will of course reject the idea of objectivity. Nevertheless, despite their delusions, truth does exist, as logically follows from their own insistence that "truth does not exist" is true.
Truth exists. Moral truth exists. Objective determinations can and should be made regarding the possible activities of human life.
Now, as an objective matter, is homosexual conduct consistent with the truth of the human person, male and female -- is it consistent with the truth of the human body and the organs by which one engages in homosexual conduct?
The reproductive organ of the male body - which is the organ by which a male has sex - is designed and made for insertion into the female body. Our body parts are made for penile-vaginal joinder, whereby the joinder of their respective pro-creative genetic material is possible. They are not made for the joinder of a penis and a pseudo-vagina, which is what an anus/rectum is (or a mouth or a hand). That is simple basic truth. Objective truth. Biological, scientific, evolutionary truth. No need to drag God in on this one. It is contrary to the truth of the nature of the human person. It is a lie against the nature of our sex organs and the sex act.
In making this determination, there is no judging of persons. There is no adjudication whereby anyone is decreed to be morally guilty. There is only an objective determination of the act, as objectively determined from the truth of human beings and our nature.
Very well stated, Bender.
Bender, I agree with most of your second post, but frankly do not understand what distinctions you are trying to make in your final paragraph.
I believe that rights are based on nature, in this case biological and physiological truth. It is indeed objective. Any such case must be based on the objective if minority human rights are ever to trump the will of the majority. Since homosexual practice is so obviously against nature to assert it as a right is to undermine the basis of all human rights, something that impoverishes us all.
Renee said...
The democrat's secular progressivism is nothing like it was just 15 years ago.
The money is the same, many large contributors give to both parties.
Yes, the secular progressives are much worse than they were 15 years ago. This is their dream come true and they are going non-stop full court press, warp factor 100, full speed ahead. You're delusional in believing your moral equivalency argument about both parties getting big money translates into something equivalent. Clearly republican donors feel like they are getting ripped off if republicans do nothing but are trying to come off as democrat lite.
SP's have been pushing and pushing and pushing and conservatives and republicans have been getting pushed back further and further each time and on top of that we are slurred ad nauseum for it.
Synova said...
Not that I'm against polygamy. I suppose it's because I've had more than one friend who was into polyamory and there are quite a few Wiccans in the sci-fi community. (Polyamorists, for what it's worth, believe it's an orientation. Something different inside you makes bonds with multiple people at the same time work.) I'm sure that there are any number of existing polygamous and polyamorous family-groups that would like to be legally married.
It's funny you mention that, I've noticed the same thing as well. Paganism, wiccanism, non-conformance spirituallity, new age appear to coincide within the gaming/sci-fi/fantasy community. Never understood that bit of pathology.
If you have to resort to quoting Jesus out of context in an effort to make your case, then quite honestly you don't have a case.
Saint Croix said...
One thing we have not really discussed in the gay marriage debate is the raising of children.
If gay marriage is a legal right, then gay men can adopt children, and lesbians can adopt children.
And you cannot discriminate. Gay couples have the same right to adopt as everybody else.
In effect you are reducing men and women to units. As long as a child has two parental units, it does not matter what their sexes are. You don't have a father? Doesn't matter. You don't have a mother? No big deal. As long as you have two parental units, you're good to go.
As you may know, there have been huge demonstrations in France over SSM, and the whole adoption thing has played a key role in them.
The Chief Rabbi of France has addressed the issue at length; you can find a translation of what he's written here. Worth a read.
The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating first cousins to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.
The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating father and son to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.
The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating mother and daughter to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.
The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating one man and two women to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.
FIFY
@Synova: "Either the State has the power under the Constitution to arbitrarily limit marriage or it doesn't."
Thread Winner
Post a Comment