10 Arguments for Same Sex Marriage…

…and why they are flawed are discussed by Brandon Vogt over at OSV.

My favorite reply to Brandon so far is this from “Satan”:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I can’t help but notice that Brandon has no answer to that. Typical. Get a Catholic bigot like Brandon wriggling in the crushing grip of logic and he just clams up.

"Chile, 1980. Women disappeared. United States, 2018. Children disappeared. And the junta knows where they ..."

All that Happened at the Border ..."
"Evil is evil. Enjoy your word games."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."
"The lib anti-church is already dead, Rob. It was born dead. Better then to let ..."

Fire Raymond Arroyo
"Why is the notion of moral trajectory unCatholic? Do you equate civilization with history?BTW the ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • joye

    This troll’s comments consist entirely of memes. Both the “has anyone really” and the “who was phone” memes can be found at KnowYourMeme if you’re interested.
    To mess with him, I replied to the “has anyone really” with the “correct” response under the moniker “God”.
    Probably I should have followed it up with that C. S. Lewis quote about flippancy. “It takes real wit to make a joke, but any idiot can talk as if a thing were funny.” Something along those lines. Very apt to the internet generation, I sometimes think.

  • kenneth

    That’s what I love about spam bots, Michele Bachmann and reality show stars. They’ve all freed the act of speaking from the bourgeois requirement of having anything to say.

    • Jon W

      Is Michelle Bachmann really as vacuous as all that? I say that as someone who has never listened to any prolonged speech/talk by her but who has a friend – whom I respect – who went to see her live and found her to be quite (surprisingly, for them) intelligent.

      Maybe she just doesn’t come across well on TV.

      • Sus

        Michelle Bachmann doesn’t come across well because of what comes out of her mouth. She said that the United States has had earthquakes and hurricanes because God doesn’t like how our government spends money.

        The most recent thing I’m aware of is that she tried to say that a member of Hilary Clinton’s staff is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    • Allan

      If you’re going to throw Michele Bachmann in there, why not Joe Biden as well? Or instead? After all, he’s considerably more prominent than she is, and in a greater position to do harm with his lack of eloquence. It seems your bias blinds you to the log in your own party’s eye while pointing to the speck in the other party’s eye.

      • kenneth

        Joe can be a smarmy bastard, but some of his skin tags are smarter than Bachmann. Even when I was a Republican, I never would have considered someone like Bachmann to be “my party.” Nor do I consider Biden’s party to really be my own. It’s one that’s less aggressively hostile to my values, but not much better at actual leadership. As an Illinois resident, I am aware of the “logs” in the Democratic Party eye. The Chicago region has produced most of them. Rod Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr. are a couple that spring to mind.

  • That’s an old 4chan thing that’s long since been absorbed into the hive mind. I forget its origin, but I think it was someone/something on Yahoo Answers.

  • Dr. Eric

    As long as America loves contraception the arguments against “gay marriage” will fall on deaf ears.

    • Good point. The general sexual confusion in our society begins with contraception.

      • Jon W

        I think I would argue that the general sexual confusion in our society begins with Descartes. Once the body is a machine, who cares how you use it?

  • That article pretty much says it all (secularly), but it requires deep thinking with a long attention span. In this new age surfing, texts & tweets we are getting good at looking at many different things quickly, but less able to dig deep into one topic. This is a very bad thing for Catholicism. Surface dwellers will yield rotten fruit.

  • tz

    The church or at least the “Catholic Club” has said the State, Caesar, has both the authority and the duty to define marriage. But Caesar needs to follow Church teaching. It might or might not be a sacrament, but if it was a sacrament, only the church would have the competence, authority, and duty to define it.

    Consider indissolubility. Luther, Henry VIII (who chopped off More’s head over the issue) said divorce was entirely a civil matter. And that is exactly what the Bishops and every Catholic I’ve heard from wants to write into civil law. Marriage to be defined as one man and one woman at a time. (No fault) Divorce completely licit and legal. Church institutions must recognize the civil definition – e.g. “spousal” benefits – apply to civilly – not ecclesiastically! – recognized spouses. Not a mano Y mano marriage, Horrors!, but a man on his 6th wife, as long as he has 5 divorce papers is just fine with Catholics and the church in its affairs (pun intended).

    The definition of marriage is already adulterated. It has been for 40 years having remove the idea of “till death do us part”, and replacing it with “till inconvenience or emotional deficit do us part”.

    Should I laugh or cry?

    Where are the 10 arguments for the indissolubility? 10 arguments to allow ROMAN CATHOLICS to require a “till death do us part” contract (with provisions against contraception) as a requirement to be married in the church?

    If this was football (USA definition), we would be trying to hold the wrong 5 yard line.

    Tell me honestly if you had to choose between banning no-fault divorce (making it harder to eliminate a spouse than a student loan debt), or banning the sham of “gay marriage”, that you would really, honestly, pick the latter?

    • Jon W

      The church has absolutely not said that the state has the duty and authority to define marriage. The church has said the state has the duty to recognize marriage and the power to enable spouses to honor their commitments for the good of the whole society. Any time the state fails in that duty to empower and enable spouses to honor their commitments, it risks grave damage to that society and its children. Marriage is hard. Married people need help, support, and honor from the community, both to maintain their households and to enable them to educate and train their children.

      If you think that the Catholic bishops are cool with no fault divorce, your smoking something.

      And in answer to your question, yes, if I had the ability to ban only one, I would definitely get rid of no-fault divorce before I would worry about gay marriage. It causes a lot more damage to society. That scenario, however, is a good hypothetical but an absurd policy.