reply to post by kaylaluv
Dear kaylaluv, (And to everyone else, please accept my apologies for not addressing you with the proper respect.)
I agree with you in a lot of ways. I'll try to point out those areas as much as I point out any disagreements.
You're right, no particular structure of family guarantees the "best" family in any given case. I'm reasonably sure the Pope was talking in
generalities (Although, I don't know that. I still haven't read the speech provided by EricD's link. Shame on me.)
I suppose I'm going to have to start looking at studies, whether I want to or not, dealing with "gay" v. "straight" couples. I don't have
definitive answers, but I suspect the gay environment is less family friendly than the straight environment (whatever that means).
And I agree with a lot of what you say about divorce. In the Church, there isn't divorce (Sure they recognize divorces created by laws, but there's
no room for divorce in the Church.) If you can't live with your spouse, you separate. You can't get married to anyone else, because in the eyes of
the Church you're still married, you just happen to be separated. If you do marry someone else, then you're committing adultery, because you're
still married to your first spouse.
The alternative is to get an annulment, which is an official Church decision that something was lacking at the time of the first wedding that
prevented it from being a legitimate marriage. That allows you to remarry.
If a Catholic breaks these rules, he is not excommunicated, but his status is "irregular," and that happens automatically, without any specific
Church action. It means, among other things, that he is not to receive Communion until his status is "regularized."
You know, I may very well be missing your point on civil rights, but I am not intentionally trying to twist meanings.
Without twisting meanings, then, I don't think there is a civil right to marry the person you love. Look at all the restrictions there are around
this "right." Blood tests, residency requirements, statement of non-relationship, fees, age limits, polygamy laws, i don't know how many more.
The state has said we can interfere with you "right" to marry in lots of ways, not allowing same sex marriages is just one more way.
I'm not sure, but I don't think I'm prejudiced. On the other hand, I may not see my prejudices. If someone asks "Are homosexual acts sins?" I
turn to the Bible. That's my handbook for sins. God will hand out whatever punishment he wants to for sins, punishment and condemnation are not my
And I really
agree with your annoyance when the Bible is ignored. I kick myself daily for "missing the mark."
But I think we can agree that consenting adults should be involved,
but you know that arranged marriages of children are an important
part of many cultures.
and we know the sad science of incestual breeding.
If a science such as psychology tells us that, on the
whole, it's not as good for children to be in same sex families, do we perevent it? I'm sure some gay couples are wonderful, and some 1st cousin
marriages present no problems.
This argument does nothing to convince me that gays shouldn't be able to marry who they love (within reason)
while straights are able to marry who they love (within reason).
That '(within reason)" part is interesting. Some people, including the
voters of thirty something states have said that gay marriage is not within reason.
kaylaluv. I really appreciate your post. Let me know if we should talk some more.