Thursday, July 31, 2003
Pope Poops on Idea of Marriage
This issue has also gotten up my sleeve, and David says it with more immediacy to the first person feelings than I can. To the Pope: go pedal your Papal Bull elsewhere. In this country, we're having a discussion about a civil matter. Talking in a civil manner which does not involve name-calling. WhateverUpon further thought, and a well deserved knock upside the head by Zombyboy, in the comments section of David's post, I must add to my comments: I made the reference above as a way to differentiate superstitions of exclusions from religious beliefs; not to malign anyone's religious beliefs. I put it that way exactly because I see this particular part of the Pope's beliefs, as indicated by his statements, to be superstitious in nature. Below are the definition and the document on which I base my statements:
superstition: A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from a belief or practice irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature
The original document translated into English: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS . Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth ...Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; ..." [emph. mine] Here's the fear part. and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. And here's the ignorance part. The idea that if children see gay couples, they will be "turned" gay has been disproved in so many ways that I find it unreal that some still believe it. People are not "convinced" to be gay, nor are they "turned" gay any more than they can be 'convinced' to be straight. People can be convinced or forced to behave differently, deny their feelings, and live a lie. How helpful is that? Think it through. Do you know anyone who has been "turned" gay/straight? What would it take to "convince" you to be straight/gay? A heterosexual child who grew up knowing only a homosexual society would be subject to the same feelings of confusion and alienation as a homosexual child who had never seen anything but heterosexual people. With human sexuality, as with everything else human, there is a continuum -- a range within which everyone falls somewhere between the strictly black-or-white definitions of hetero- and homo- sexuality. Were it not for the rigorous training of our society which dictates that "you Must decide, one way or the other, and be bound by that decision forever," more people would be aware that they feel attraction for members of their own gender. Maybe enough to act upon it, and maybe just enough to lend a little more enjoyment to life. Alas, the penalty for even recognizing such feelings, let alone acting on them, is so high that many never afford themselves the opportunity to realize the many shades of color that lie between Black and White. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Blew a coupla toes off with that one, insofar as the inalienable rights of citizens of the US via the Constitution. Otherwise why would an amendment be necessary to exclude gay marriage? And, really; just because you run a major religion doesn't mean you can define for the rest of us "natural moral law" and "right reason." Here in America, religion is a choice. Philosophical outlook is a choice. If one chooses to subscribe to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, that is their Constitutionally given right. However, if one is in a position to make laws that govern others who subscribe to other beliefs, one must base those laws on the good of this society and for reasons which are demonstrable outside of the belief system of the Catholic Church, the Wiccan faith, or any other faith-based belief system. We take nothing for granted; we must prove the usefulness of all proposed laws, each on its own merit. Which statement, I believe, addresses the participation of Catholic lawmakers: Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples, and non-Catholics should follow their lead since the issue concerns "natural moral law," said the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. This seems a bit of faulty logic as, otherwise, any people who happen to be unable to reproduce for whatever reason should also not be eligible to marry. Methodologies of contribution to the survival, and thriving, of the human race have gone far beyond simply procreating. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. According to this, children who are raised without exposure to music, literature, travel, and the refinements of every civilization the world has known are also being done violence as that is the environment conducive to full human development. Or, wait; isn't there something in human nature that requires that the individual must develop the skills to learn and discover for himself? I've never met anyone who believed exactly as their parents do, and who shared exactly the same interests, passions and perspectives in the world. That is definitional to "individual." [It's not like kids of gay couples will never see any heterosexual culture, after all. They might even have (gasp) heterosexual teachers or scout leaders.] 8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. I disagree. I believe society owes its continued survival to recognition of the humanity in each of us, and a corresponding respect underlying the treatment of each individual by the State. 11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. Didn't the church take the position while ago that homosexual people didn't actually exist; only "deviant behavior?" I think that, despite themselves, they are making steps. Itty-bitty unconscious ones -- yet, steps. None of what I've read substantiates any of the fear contained within it. I think it behooves us to re-examine the actions and the resultant outcomes of the Netherlands and Belgium which have "extended marriage rights to all couples, no matter the partners' gender." [Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and, yes, even France have "civil union" laws.]
"It's the Vatican's good right to make statements like this, but here in the Netherlands, we have separation of church and state," said Kathleen Ferrier, a spokeswoman for the Christian Democrats.
In Belgium, where three-quarters of the population is Roman Catholic, the Flemish Christian Democrats said the issue boiled down to supporting all kinds of families.
"For us, what's important is sustained relationships," said Luk Vanmaercke, a party spokesman.
Sustained relationships. Mutual respect among people. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They all belong together and support one another.
Statistics
This page has been viewed 18346580 times
Total Entries: 5718
Total Comments: 4193
Total Trackbacks: 714
Most Recent Entry: 06/14/2011 06:44 am
Most Recent Comment on: 11/27/2011 05:18 pm
{/if}
