Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,409
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 25, 2014 21:25:48 GMT -5
Honest non-rhetorical question....would you really want your children or grandchildren to have their first physical experience on the night of their marriage to someone they can't easily divorce? Ancillary question: what percentage of CATHOLIC marriages would you say is this actually the case? Certainly far less than 1% in this country would be my guess. Your guess? I'm just trying to guage how far exactly your worldview is disengaged with the world we actually live in. Sigh! And that is why our divorce rate is so low.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 25, 2014 23:44:30 GMT -5
The glossing over of the pedophilia and the institutional protection of those involved is convenient and egregious. The parsing of older children and younger children, considering they're all children, is homerism the likes of which even this board has never seen.
The homophobia thing is debatable to a degree. Especially considering homophobia is a misleading word that is used to cover those who think that a segment of the population deserves different rights than they do themselves. That's not out of fear. It's not a phobia. It's bigotry or prejudice. We all know bigotry.
Having said that, I find it difficult to defend people that love everyone the same and then would choose to deny them the LEGAL right to get married. Why are many Catholics unwilling to see the distinction between the legal contract of marriage and the sacrament of marriage? Most gay people I know that are married didn't want to get married in churches or even go to church because they feel as though the church doesn't support them even if they still consider themselves Catholic. They'll settle for the legal marriage and do without the sacrament because, in some cases, they're Catholic and don't think of the sacrament of marriage as a union between two of the same sex in the eyes of God but also because, in many cases, they realize it's progress for gay people societally (if not religiously) and probably the best they can expect from the churches they grew up with in their lifetimes and, likely, in many proceeding lifetimes. I know a few people that are truly conflicted by what they feel about themselves and the lack of comfort they feel from the churches that they spent their lives being a part of. It's very sad in that, one of the places in which they found comfort and compassion, they now feel doesn't have those same feelings about them because of something about themselves that they never chose or had any control over. I have one particular friend that was quite devoted to the church growing up and he is particularly conflicted. His view is that God made him the way he is and he didn't get to choose but, in his mind, others get to choose how "Catholic" he's allowed to be now. Pretty sad to think about.
In any case, what is the big deal about the marriage thing anyway? The passing of the law is about legal marriage. Why do Catholics care about who can legally marry? I honestly am asking because I really don't know.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 25, 2014 23:54:18 GMT -5
Honest non-rhetorical question....would you really want your children or grandchildren to have their first physical experience on the night of their marriage to someone they can't easily divorce? Ancillary question: what percentage of CATHOLIC marriages would you say is this actually the case? Certainly far less than 1% in this country would be my guess. Your guess? I'm just trying to guage how far exactly your worldview is disengaged with the world we actually live in. Sigh! And that is why our divorce rate is so low. If we're going to be flippant about the sex part, plenty of marriages begin to fall apart based on the fact that the sex is infrequent or unsatisfying or the two people are just very different in their sex drives/preferences/compatibilities. Of course there are hundreds of other reasons. But to make light of that one isn't being realistic.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Apr 26, 2014 9:10:15 GMT -5
It's bigotry or prejudice. We all know bigotry. President Obama, 2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Since you seem to know, was he a bigot?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Apr 26, 2014 11:55:48 GMT -5
It's bigotry or prejudice. We all know bigotry. President Obama, 2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Since you seem to know, was he a bigot? He was lying for political gain. I think there's cognitive dissonance in a view that says I love homosexuals just like any of God's creatures, premarital sex is wrong whether between same or opposite sex, and oh btw, homosexuals should not be able to get married.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Apr 26, 2014 11:58:45 GMT -5
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Apr 26, 2014 12:53:21 GMT -5
It's inconceivable that anyone could remain part of that institution.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,409
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 26, 2014 13:18:33 GMT -5
Sigh! And that is why our divorce rate is so low. If we're going to be flippant about the sex part, plenty of marriages begin to fall apart based on the fact that the sex is infrequent or unsatisfying or the two people are just very different in their sex drives/preferences/compatibilities. Of course there are hundreds of other reasons. But to make light of that one isn't being realistic. I was just pointing out the irony of thebin's statment. People living together, supposedly getting to know each other, sexually and otherwise, and that, instead of decreasing the divorce rate, seems to have increased it.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Apr 26, 2014 13:36:19 GMT -5
Divorce statistics are misleading. Half of all marriages may end in divorce but only something like 30% of all people end up divorced.
There are a lot of professional divorcees.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Apr 26, 2014 13:52:37 GMT -5
And, what's wrong with divorce? Why should people be forced to stay in a bad relationship?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 26, 2014 20:05:24 GMT -5
If we're going to be flippant about the sex part, plenty of marriages begin to fall apart based on the fact that the sex is infrequent or unsatisfying or the two people are just very different in their sex drives/preferences/compatibilities. Of course there are hundreds of other reasons. But to make light of that one isn't being realistic. I was just pointing out the irony of thebin's statment. People living together, supposedly getting to know each other, sexually and otherwise, and that, instead of decreasing the divorce rate, seems to have increased it. Gotcha. I apologize for my misunderstanding. I hadn't thought of it quite that way but, in a way, that also makes sense.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 26, 2014 20:09:43 GMT -5
It's bigotry or prejudice. We all know bigotry. President Obama, 2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Since you seem to know, was he a bigot? Well, the snarkiness is entertaining and all but, imo, it was certainly a prejudiced/bigoted comment if he was, in fact, referring to the legal contract of marriage. Seems as though President Obama, at the least, has changed his mind so, no, I wouldn't call him a bigot.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 26, 2014 20:11:44 GMT -5
Divorce statistics are misleading. Half of all marriages may end in divorce but only something like 30% of all people end up divorced. There are a lot of professional divorcees. Really? It makes sense that the stats are skewed due to multiple divorces by individuals but 20% off? Wow.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 27, 2014 19:17:24 GMT -5
It's inconceivable that anyone could remain part of that institution. When did this discussion become about the Democrat Party?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 28, 2014 8:02:32 GMT -5
1) I see know reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to have secular legal marriages. And I agree with those who don't see why Catholics block this. I am fine with the Catholic church saying the sacrament of Matrimony is between a man and a woman. I guess the argument would be that it encourages them to have sex with each other and the church believes that only the sex part is the problem, that a person can be homosexual and it's not a sin, but the church unrealistically expects them to never act on it or it's a sin. I know this is a flawed analogy, but I don't think you should block some one's right because is encourages them to do something you perceive as bad with that right, you shouldn't block someone's right to free speech because it encourages them to say something you disagree with.
2) Not to defend Ed and I'm not agreeing with this statement, but I think one of the things he was trying to articulate is that according to the church Sex is reserved for those who have be joined in the sacrament of matrimony. So he sees as does the church anyone having sex outside of marriage as committing a sin. So unmarried college students having one night stands are committing a sin, adultery is a sin, and in theory sex between a homosexual couple whether they have a secular marriage or not is a sin. And all of those are equally bad in his mind. Not supporting this view, but I'm not sure this was being interpreted clearly by others.
3)There are still many couples who choose not to have sex before marriage, but that doesn't mean they are going into the marriage blind of sex and their sexual compatibility. The catholic church requires couples getting married through the church to now go on a retreat with their partner where they discuss issue like sex, money, values, etc. So at the very least they've been forced to discuss those issues at least once. And any good couple will have discussed those issues many times prior to engagement and then marriage.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Apr 29, 2014 16:47:03 GMT -5
No response at all. I don't know why I'm surprised.
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on Apr 30, 2014 10:28:32 GMT -5
No response at all. I don't know why I'm surprised. It almost seems like entrenched institutions with a blind commitment to certain ideological principles aren't allowed to admit there are chinks in the armor. As for statistics on abstinence before marriage this is a good start: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Apr 30, 2014 12:11:21 GMT -5
No response at all. I don't know why I'm surprised. It almost seems like entrenched institutions with a blind commitment to certain ideological principles aren't allowed to admit there are chinks in the armor. As for statistics on abstinence before marriage this is a good start: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/This one is especially hard since JPII has been revered as pretty much the perfect person for decades. So, when it turns out that he's actually a vile criminal, well, that must be a hard one to swallow.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 30, 2014 21:39:14 GMT -5
No response at all. I don't know why I'm surprised. It almost seems like entrenched institutions with a blind commitment to certain ideological principles aren't allowed to admit there are chinks in the armor. As for statistics on abstinence before marriage this is a good start: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/Or institutions in general in some ways. Investment banks come to mind. Public schools do to a degree as well. Not in the same capacities but in their lack of transparency. Teachers' unions have come under fire fairly recently too. It's only when problems get so bad that anyone seems to notice. Not that dissimilar from the Sterling fiasco. The institutions seem to sweep this stuff under the rug until they no longer can or they're just caught. It causes an even larger backlash than the incidents in a way because people feel betrayed and, invariably, stories come out that people in power knew and didn't act for various reasons (usually self-serving ones) which then serve to Edited people off more. The Catholic church is very much guilty of that though some still try to refute it. Any institution that large is going to have its share of scumbags and degenerates. The Church isn't immune to that. But, with regard to the standards to which people hold the Church (for good reason), it's especially damaging to believers and lapsed Catholics and also very hypocritical for any member of the Church to not fess up widespread institution failure and sins against their own followers. The lifeblood of the Church is faith and belief and trust. When that is violated on a large scale by visible spiritual leaders, that's something that is going to cause long-lasting scrutiny and skepticism as it should. It's like a little kid waiting to get picked up from school by his mom. If she forgets to do it once, it sucks but the kid gets over it. If it happens again, the kid is a bit angry and wondering what's going on. By the fourth time the kid starts to expect that maybe mom won't show up at all. If that same kid found out that dad knew the whole time that mom wasn't showing up to get him and didn't step in to help him out, how does that kid now feel? BTW, his aunt and uncle knew too. So did his grandparents. Still, no one showed up to pick him up. There aren't enough reasonable explanations for why that kid didn't get picked up that will make that kid trust that the next time he's sitting in front of the school that mom will be there. Moreover, at that point, the kid is no longer listening to excuses because he knows what happened already and realizes that any explanation is likely BS. Even if it's not, he's already hurt enough that he doesn't want to hear the reasoning.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 9, 2014 9:42:12 GMT -5
|
|