"Why is this principle called discrimination when applied to SSM?"
I don't know the answer.... but I know that it is.
We (the CPC) have to drop this issue immediately, and put it behind us. We tried our best. We lost. Pursuing it further will ensure we're nothing but a bit player for a long, long time.
I bent my core values to try to support the CPC on this - but I'm seriously sick of it. I want -my issues- to be talked about for a while. Is that so horribley selfish?
Of course not Andrew. We all have the right to fight to have our issues brought forward. I find much to like in the policy proposals you like; I just think that family has a higher priority. I'd liken it to a foundation on which the others are built. I'll try to make myself heard, as will everyone who cares about living in a healthy democracy. I don't think I'm at cross purposes from you.
I think this is over, Curt. I think if the CPC make this the central plank of their campaign next time, people will only ask "Why do you want to dredge this up for?". It will be old news for the vast majority of the population by Christmas. Seriously, we have had SSM for a while in Ontario and no one has even noticed.
I don't live in Ontario. Or Vancouver, for that matter.
People here in the valley will be cross (Abbostford is staunchly conservative; I love it here), and I suspect the rest of the lands that went CPC in the last election will be similar, esp. when stuff like Kempling and the Knights keeps coming up. It has the potential to be like sand in the shoe.
The CPC will drop this as an election issue. They will be painted with this if they make it part of the next election again.
SSM has been happening in BC for two years. The sky didn't fall, the sun is setting in the west!
In Canada, the fight may already be over. Canadians don't appear to have the same attachment to traditional institutions as Americans. But here to your south, if same-sex marriage is somehow imposed on us, the firestorm will rage unchecked for decades. Consider the thirty-plus years since Roe v. Wade as an example.
I can't see why people will stay worked up over it. If they aren't gay they won't have to get married and if they are religious they won't have to give up their space for these civil ceremonies.
(Your comment counter doesn't seem to work)
If Canadians don't stay "worked up over it", they're not paying attention to the larger picture. "Gay Marriage" changes the worldview of marriage from a personal, loving and life-giving union between an consciousness-embodied man and woman into a mere social contract between two dis-integrated people. Such people have divorced their minds from their bodies instead of living in the reality that every person lives life in body and mind. To live otherwise is to devalue part of one's self; this diminishes a person as a whole. This diminished person then goes through life making important decisions based on nothing more than "What I want" instead of "What is right."
How long will it take before such an attitude of convenience toward marriage results in spiking divorce rates and other destabilizing factors in society? Think any society can stand for long if it's founded on quicksand?
Harm the family, and Society suffers. The widespread acceptance of the philosophical paradigm of which "gay marriage" is an example hurts the family. That's why conservatives, particularly of the Traditionalist bend, refuse to surrender. That's why conservatives in Canada, and the rest of the world, shouldn't either.
"Gay Marriage" changes the worldview of marriage...
On what planet? Seriously, this makes zero sense to me. Since the dawn of time, same sex couples have made loving, lifelong commitments and raised families. While it was done clandestinely, it was nevertheless done. Those who opposed homosexuality generally criticize gays for NOT making lifelong commitments ie promiscuity. So there's always been gay "marriages", just not gay "civil unions" - which is all a government, any government, can bestow.
Just as in the eyes of the Roman church a "divorce" can disolve a legal corporation but not a marriage, neither can the same government create marriage through the issuance of permits.
The fact that we've had ssm here for a few years (and there's not been a stamepede of gay couples getting married nor anybody suing the local Parish for not putting up streamers) makes chickenlittles out of ssm opponents.
Yesterday's ruling does not in any way make MY marriage less. The government, Tories, Liberals, whoever, can issue all the decrees it wishes without diminishing my family.
Anyway, I made a prediction on this site several months ago, and I believe SOMEBODY owes me a bazillion dollars.
Blessings,
Jordan
Can you refresh my memory?
"Evidence, please"
A very soggy comeback. It's like saying "there's never been a happy milkman. Do I know one? Do you? How do you "really" know he's happy? Gets us nowhere. Are you suggesting that throughout history there have never been ss couples in committed, lifelong loving relationships who've raised kids together? This line of reasoning is just plain silly.
"those people"
I would say those people who criticize a Bishop for advocating "coercion" have a valid point. The objection is to the term, not his right to express his position. It was an appalling straw-man to suggest the objection was against his right to express Catholic Teaching (tm).
Yes, a small minority wishes the Roman church would stop saying x. But overwhelmingly people in this country believe in free speech - but NOT to the point of advocating violence, or the threat of violence, which is the meaning of coercion. This does not to my understanding require a change in RC teaching, but if the Church actually does call for the use of violence against homosexuals that's a new on one me.
"Sexual activity between two gay people can't be unitive or procreative."
Not procreative, as is the case with millions of heterosexual couples, but how can you say it's not unitive? Two people, together, for better or worse etc. dying of old age surrounded by grandkids. This is not unitive? Now, you may disagree with me, but I affirm these people have souls, they have spirit, and such a loving committed family is a manifestation of spiritual unity, in my view.
"There can be no mutual holistic act of self-giving between them"
Respectfully, I have to dismiss this outright. On what possible grounds is this statement made? If we look at mutual, and holistic, and self-giving, each one of these terms can apply to the same-sex couples that I have known personally.
One might equally say that vegetarian couples can't have a self-giving relationship, or that couples who own lawnmowers can't be "mutual".
Please understand that I think it's completely fair for you to say that SSM is outside the Church's teachings, or even the will of God, or not natural. But I do object to the illogic of employing terms such as "self-giving" when it's demonstrable that gay couples are indeed capable of such relationships.
It seems to me that THIS is the root of the cries of bigotry: when one claims that SSM is immoral, that's a fair comment, but when one claims that gay couples can't be unitive, that's easily construed as bigotry when run through the filter of logic and fairness, in my opinion.
Since the dawn of time, same sex couples have made loving, lifelong commitments and raised families.
Evidence, please.
Those who opposed homosexuality generally criticize gays for NOT making lifelong commitments ie promiscuity.
Again, Evidence, please. By "homosexuality" are you referring to the orientation or activity? Catholic Teaching condemns the latter; the former it calls disordered because such an orientation does not lead to unitive and procreative sexual activity. This does not mean a person with such an orientation is evil.
Just as in the eyes of the Roman church a "divorce" can disolve a legal corporation but not a marriage, neither can the same government create marriage through the issuance of permits.
True, the government does not "create" marriage. Governments do recognize marriages, however. By recognizing marriages, Government declares the public legitimacy of such unions because they benefit the social order. If government recognizes that two people in a relatioship are married, when ontologically they're incapable of such a relationship, places rhetoric over reality.
An homosexual relationship doesn't embody the complementarity of a marriage between a man and woman. The procreative and unitive sexual act within a marriage of a man and woman is the expression of the complete union of self-giving persons that marriage is.
Sexual activity between two gay people can't be unitive or procreative. Any sexual relation between such people is an act that fundamentally puts such people's minds and bodies in opposition. There can be no mutual holistic act of self-giving between them. Thus, such a relationship between two persons can't be a marriage.
To call any other type of relationship a marriage confuses society's understanding of marriage. Such confusion leads to a diminished respect for marriage, which results in disaster for society.
The fact that we've had ssm here for a few years (and there's not been a stamepede of gay couples getting married nor anybody suing the local Parish for not putting up streamers) makes chickenlittles out of ssm opponents.
If opponents of "gay marriage" are such "chicken littles", then what would you call those people that have accused a Catholic Bishop up of human rights violations because he publically addresses the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is a Bishop's primary role? Perhaps they're so concerned that Catholics would somehow stop the same-sex marriage bill that now has passed. Would this make those people the chicken littles in your opinion?
"Evidence, please"
A very soggy comeback. It's like saying "there's never been a happy milkman. Do I know one? Do you? How do you "really" know he's happy? Gets us nowhere.
As apples and oranges as I've ever seen. Your example has nothing to do with the statement that I asked you to support.
Are you suggesting that throughout history there have never been ss couples in committed, lifelong loving relationships who've raised kids together? This line of reasoning is just plain silly.
Indeed, but that's not what I've suggested. You observation that "Since the dawn of time, same sex couples have made loving, lifelong commitments and raised families" implies a significant number of these people. That implied assertion calls for evidence. Can you point out any reliable evidence that shows significant numbers of these or not?
"those people"
I would say those people who criticize a Bishop for advocating "coercion" have a valid point. The objection is to the term, not his right to express his position.
Coercion? What utter nonsense. ,a href="http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=208">Here is the pastoral letter that Bishop Henry wrote. This is the sentence tha t appears to have caused the hand-wringing:
Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.
The entire context of his letter it to oppose "gay marriage". His opponents conveniently interprete the "implications" of his letter to say that he calls on the State to "oppress" homosexuals. The bishops opponents don't like that he has used strong language to advocate the Catholic Church's opposition to a political goal they hold most dear. This is rank sensorship if ever there was one.
(cont.)
It was an appalling straw-man to suggest the objection was against his right to express Catholic Teaching (tm).
Wrong. The objection to Bishop Henry's letter is an objection to his instruction on a related principle of Catholic Social Teaching. You're characterization of this blatent tactic as an "appalling straw-men" suggests a regretable intellectual dishonesty that I'm sure you're better than.
Yes, a small minority wishes the Roman church would stop saying x.
True, only two plaintiffs lodged complaints against Henry Bishop. But the subsequent coverage by the Toronto Star and the CBC have overwhelmingly presented a one-sided view of the controversy. One can't help but wonder if they would rather the Bishop disappear from the public square.
But overwhelmingly people in this country believe in free speech - but NOT to the point of advocating violence, or the threat of violence, which is the meaning of coercion.
This is such a red herring that it's laughable. Where did Bishop Henry advocate violence? Unless you subscribe to the libertarian notion that all government intervention is "violent", this conclusion reeks of insanity. Or worse, politically correct posturing.
This does not to my understanding require a change in RC teaching, but if the Church actually does call for the use of violence against homosexuals that's a new on one me.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church condemns violence or visciousness of any kind, including actual discrimination. That's why Bishop Henry did not call for the commission any of these violations of Christian charity. He called on government to exercise it's proper role of regulating the rights of citizens in order to promote the common good, in this case to refuse to legalize marriage for active homosexual couples.
(cont.)
"Sexual activity between two gay people can't be unitive or procreative."
Not procreative, as is the case with millions of heterosexual couples, but how can you say it's not unitive? Two people, together, for better or worse etc. dying of old age surrounded by grandkids. This is not unitive?
In point of fact, it is not completely unitive, which is the whole point of sex being a unitive act. At no time can these two people unite physically in such an intimate way that they share the entire essence of their very lives: mental, emotional spiritual and physical. While they may share the first three, they can't share the final one. To suggest that physical union is not necessary for the sexual act to be unitive is to embrace a dualism that defies human experience and reasoning as old as classical antiquity.
Now, you may disagree with me, but I affirm these people have souls, they have spirit, and such a loving committed family is a manifestation of spiritual unity, in my view.
Of course I would not disagree with you as to whether or not people that engage in active homosexual activity have souls. They are people before they are gay people, after all. However, as I explained before, unitive sexuality requires more than just spiritual unity. We are embodied souls, not independent states of consciousness that ride a body the way a child rides a bike.
"There can be no mutual holistic act of self-giving between them"
Respectfully, I have to dismiss this outright. On what possible grounds is this statement made? If we look at mutual, and holistic, and self-giving, each one of these terms can apply to the same-sex couples that I have known personally.
With respect, you have never known same-sex couples that have participated in homosexual activity that is at least open to procreativity. I have argued that if this is not the case, than the act can't be physically unitive, and therefore can't be unitive to the person as a whole. The unitive and procreative nature of sexual activity can't be separated without violating the sacredness of the gift and the dis-integration of those that participate in it.
(cont.)
One might equally say that vegetarian couples can't have a self-giving relationship, or that couples who own lawnmowers can't be "mutual".
Non-sequitors now? Honestly, I expected more sound arguments from you.
Please understand that I think it's completely fair for you to say that SSM is outside the Church's teachings, or even the will of God, or not natural.
I appreciate your fairness regarding my acceptance of 2,000 years of Divinely revealed tradition. It's more than some that advocate "gay marriage" have afforded me.
But I do object to the illogic of employing terms such as "self-giving" when it's demonstrable that gay couples are indeed capable of such relationships.
Ah, I see. So the very argument that rationally calls into question the morality of homosexual activity and "gay marriage"--without reference to sectarian doctrine of any kind--is the argument you object to as "illogical".
Let's try it again, then, shall we?
*People are made up of body, mind and spirit.
*People live their lives as an integrated whole of body, mind and spirit.
*A man and woman that truly love each other as themselves, or even greater than themselves, choose to unite themselves together in marriage.
*This union is therefore one of body, mind and spirit.
*The fundemental expression of this union, sexual intercourse, is therefore an expression that unites them physically, mentally and spiritually. (Note that I include the emotional under the term mental for simplicity's sake)
*Physically, the sexual act provides for the couples mutual exchange of each other's essence. They share with one another their ability to participate in the procreation of new life.
*Therefore, the sexual act in marriage expresses the unitive and procreative reality that is a marriage.
*Only men and women are capable of such integrated union that ultimately unites them to each other and opens the way for new life to enter the world.
*Thus, only a man and a woman can marry.
it seems to me that THIS is the root of the cries of bigotry:
I wondered when this inevitable accusation would come forth.
when one claims that SSM is immoral, that's a fair comment, but when one claims that gay couples can't be unitive, that's easily construed as bigotry when run through the filter of logic and fairness, in my opinion.
Your entitled to your opinion. To your concern that my argument is the "root of the cries of bigotry", I would say your concern is not with me. It's with the Fathers of Western Civilization.
I've taken far too much of our host's bandwidth and comment space to respond further in this discussion. Please email me should you wish to continue. If you like, we could begin threads at our blogs to better facilitate the dialogue. Let me know what you decide.
Certainly, and I do appreciate the sincerity of your comments, although you do seem to misconstrue them quite easily. I would however leave this with one critical clarification:
coercion: the use of express or implied threats of violence
So yes, +Henry's choice of words was irresponsible, and worthy of criticism. I would of course be the first to acknowledge that the use of coercion goes *against* Catholic teaching - further reason why he should have retracted the document, in my opinion.
Thank you so much Curt for hosting this exchange. It is only in the respectful and civil exchange of ideas that anything constructive be accomplished.
dear curt...thank you for saying that there needs to be compassion...there does...the people that vote on these matters may or may not follow the Lord in their day to day lives...we vote... we need to pray that our leaders in Canada make Godly choices...I am reminded of a verse in Chronicles that does not point to the government but to those of us who call ourselves christians...in other words disciples of Christ...no matter what religion... "if my people will humble themselve and pray and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land." that is God's stance...the owness is upon His people to pray, to care, to love...since moving to Victoria I have met many gay men and some of them are very beautiful people, and they know I am a Christian, but ultimately my call is to love, not to condemn them...their concious will do that...also in the book of Jude we are clearly told to expect these things in the latter days. This issue is very important to the moral fibre of our country, but there are other issues that are also so crucial...euthanasia, child molestation, genetic engineering, stem cell research, cloning...these things are going to happen because since the beginning of time man has always tried to "know" more than his creator... the tower of babel..."let us go down and confuse their language."... yes, my heart is grieving over this, but my heart also grieves at how many children are playing virtual reality games before they can tell real from false...my heart also grieves that moms are forced to work even if they want to raise their children...it is technology that is the curse...when there is room to help, that same technology can be misused...there is a God in heaven who weeps, but there is a glorious hope in Christ that we will be with Him forever if we hold fast until the end...let us not give up... let us lead people to God's heart thru these trying times, and embrace the person...love the sinner(of which I am one)...and seperate the sin...that is God's job...we are to be "fishers of men"...God will clean His fishies... thanks for taking a compassionate yet intelligent stance for what is right.
god bless you curt...your sis...val.
Commenting by HaloScan
