Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Strega on March 16, 2013 at 12:15pm

That helps, Professor Robert.  You might have gleaned from the forum that I am a lesbian, married to my wife.  I'm trying to establish if we are committing a 'mortal sin' according to the RCC?  And if so, who decides what is and what isn't 'mortal'? Is it the Pope with his advisers? I can only find references to it grouped with masturbation, and if that is a 'mortal sin' then surely virtually everyone is headed to hell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Professor Robert on March 16, 2013 at 2:22pm

You have to understand that the Church is about teaching, not judgment.  Because determining whether a sin is truly "mortal" requires an understanding of your internal state and intent, there is no way for anyone but yourself and God to decide that authoritatively.

The Church primarily is about teaching virtue, not prohibiting vice.  The essence of the teachings on sexual morality is to try to describe an ideal of lifelong monogamy and family.  In other words, sex is just a reflection of the love between two people which is open to possibilities; it is diminished when used solely for entertainment or pleasure, to a greater or less degree depending on how far one moves from or betrays the ideal.

Part of that historically is that the more sex is associated with pleasure rather than love, the more women (and men) become objectified in ways that are harmful, and that is damaging to both individuals and society.    As we take that further from the ideal, cheating on one's spouse for pleasure causes a lot of harm and is gravely sinful, so if done with deliberate intent to commit that harm it may be "mortal" in that it so seriously damages one's relationships with others and with God.

Honestly, though, homosexuality is not something we dwell on particularly.  I think homosexuality is addressed in two paragraphs out of the entire very long book of the Catholic catechism.

Can I ask a question?  Why did you want to go through what is essentially a religious ritual (at least in its origins) with your partner?  "Marriage" seems an odd choice for an atheist. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagacious Hawk on March 16, 2013 at 2:32pm

"Marriage seems an odd choice for an atheist."

Is this because you don't think that an atheist wants to celebrate a meaningful and joyous occasion? The ritual part is unimportant in light of the public declaration to family and friends and desire to share one's happiness with those one cares for. You might see a marriage ceremony as primarily a ritual practice, but then I take it you have had a long life of being a Catholic and that's probably how you've always thought of it. Am I right?

Personally, I like they way it was done in Braveheart.

(This of course makes no mention of the legal form of marriage or the legal benefits of marriage which is one of the strongest reasons for a couple to get married, simply because I didn't think that was your point, marriage being in quotes in all.)

Permalink Reply by Strega on March 16, 2013 at 2:52pm

Legal equality, Robert.  I'm a Brit and my wife is an American.  Because we are legally married, she can come and live in the UK with me, so immigration plays a vital part in our particular circumstances.  I, however, am here in the USA on a work permit, because the immigration rights are not reciprocal.

There are some conflicting laws however.  Because we are married, she is no longer entitled to state support financially because of my income - yet I will not be permitted to stay with her if i cannot renew my work permit.  So they consider us married when it comes to saving money, but not married at the same time, when it comes to immigration.

There were personal reasons also, but they are not necessary to declare here as they relate to my wife's past.

[see here for the rights of married vs unmarried couples]

Permalink Reply by kOrsan on March 16, 2013 at 3:29pm

In other words, sex is just a reflection of the love between two people which is open to possibilities; it is diminished when used solely for entertainment or pleasure, to a greater or less degree depending on how far one moves from or betrays the ideal.

Ridiculous, infantile, naive nonsense put forward by prude, repressed, horny old virgins filled with self hatred, hatred of human nature, and hatred of women.

Grow up.

Part of that historically is that the more sex is associated with pleasure rather than love, the more women (and men) become objectified in ways that are harmful, and that is damaging to both individuals and society.

Straight out lie. I'm calling your bluff. And you theists' hatred of everything that is good and pleasurable is disgusting. Stop forcing your sick aversion to human nature on others.

Why did you want to go through what is essentially a religious ritual (at least in its origins) with your partner?  "Marriage" seems an odd choice for an atheist.

Bam. See this is where professor theist got you guys by the balls. I've been saying this for ages now. Why do we, as atheists, still propagate this antiquated bullshit social construct that was only meant to keep people in line and keep tabs on them? It has no meaning, it's make-pretend. And yeah I'm not talking about those of you who do it for legal/financial reason, which I still find shitty thing to do though. Don't fight for same sex marriage, fight to abolish marriage. We don't need a legal contract, lawyers, government and god to dictate our love lives.

Permalink Reply by Strega on March 16, 2013 at 3:45pm

That's the problem, K0rsan.  So many civil rights have been wrapped around the status of marriage that are not available without.  If they wanted to call gay unions "Fartblastipoops unions" instead, but gave them the same civil rights as religious marriage, I'd be fine with it. 

Or better still, strip the civil rights out of religious unions and just make that a faith statement, and instead create legal contracts that the governments can attach the civil rights to.

In the UK, we have spouse sponsorship, where if you can prove that you are in a committed relationship with your non-UK partner, gay or straight, they can stay with you indefinitely in the UK.  No marriage required.

Now that's progress.

Permalink Reply by kOrsan on March 16, 2013 at 3:55pm

@Strega

Or better still, strip the civil rights out of religious unions and just make that a faith statement, and instead create legal contracts that the governments can attach the civil rights to.

Nailed it. Marriages should have no more rights attached to it than declaring your favorite color yellow. It means shit. But government and religion have to keep a prize involved, because otherwise not as many people would bother (because people who actually understand love already know that marriage is an empty label-slapping gist) and then their mob-business would dwindle.

Also, we miss you in the chat.

Permalink Reply by Angela Evangelia on March 16, 2013 at 3:05pm

Hi Strega

I havent thought this out properly in my mind yet but ill give it a go.

I think that church doctrine has a lot to do with structuring foundations for strong societies. A strong society is able support variations within it.

If the variations start to outnumber the majority - then we have problems.

The bible seems to talk a lot about how variations of human behaviour starts to tip the scales in an adverse way.

So I reckon that the church holds the responsibility of making sure the bedrock stays firm.

one man one woman is the bedrock that supports everything else.

because the bible is really about societies i think.

 There has to be more to it than just because some non existant God says so,

Thats where my thinking about it stops,

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Strega on March 16, 2013 at 3:11pm

one man one woman is the bedrock that supports everything else.

That's an opinion, not a "Truth".  I'd call that fluffy, to be honest.  (I don't mean your opinion, I mean the church's position)

Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on March 16, 2013 at 3:22pm

Angela, I agree with Strega.  I think this is a flaw in the argument: 

"one man one woman is the bedrock that supports everything else." 

If 9 out of 10 people are born heterosexual, then our species won't die out.  Also - homosexuals are traditionally highly innovative within society, in all kinds of ways. 

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on March 16, 2013 at 5:20pm

@Strega

"If they wanted to call gay unions "Fartblastipoops unions"...I'd be fine with it."

However there are those (you nay be among them) who want to be MARRIED - not Fartblastipoopsusized. Even if it is, in every legal aspect, identical to marriage. 

In NZ we've had Civil Unions for some years - in every way legally identical to marriage. However the "marriage is between a man and a woman" crowd can still claim a distinction. So true marriage equality laws are about to bolt easily through Parliament.

Geez when are US politicians going to grow up?

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on March 16, 2013 at 5:38pm

@kOrsan

"marriage is an empty label-slapping gist"

Not so sure. A public declaration of fealty can be important. It can add strength to the bond. It says, "I don't care how irresistible I am, I'm TAKEN - look elsewhere". It means that, if there is trouble, even serious trouble, they will work to preserve the bond rather than simply cast it aside as just another failed relationship.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page