Thursday, July 17, 2008

Ah, the joy of semantics.


On the one hand:

Ethicist Somerville Denied Order of Canada for Mild Opposition to Gay Agenda

On the other hand (from that same piece):

Somerville's assertion that homosexual couples should not adopt children, based on clinical evidence showing that children thrive best in the context of natural marriage, was met with fury from the homosexual activist and radical feminist community.

Tune in tomorrow when another nuanced and thoughtful right-wing position is countered with savage, mindless outrage by shrieking, leftist moonbats.

13 comments:

toujoursdan said...

Is this the same type of clinical evidence that proves that a worldwide flood submerged Bedrock and killed off all the dinosaurs?

Dr.Dawg said...

WTF is "natural marriage?"

Frank Frink said...

WTF is "natural marriage?"

Isn't it something like Grog the caveman bonks a cavewoman over the head with his club, takes her back to the cave and proclaims, "Uhhh, Grog mate!".

Ti-Guy said...

WTF is "natural marriage?"

When pole meets hole.

Isn't that beautiful and precious and holy in its own special way?

The Seer said...

Sine ty-guy asked "WTF is "natural marriage?" I will explain it: It is a marriage consecrated by Holy Mother the Church. ( Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and if you think Vatican II said anything different, you have to read the fine print, lately inserted into the official record by The Holy Father, meaning the current and true Holy Father, not the recent revisionist pretenders.)

liberal supporter said...

Sine ty-guy asked "WTF is "natural marriage?" I will explain it:
No, ti-guy did not ask, dr. dawg did.

How can we expect you to accurately report what the book of mumbo jumbo says, when you can't even read 20 lines here with comprehension?

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it sounds like only the Roman Catholic Church's marriages are "natural".

So everyone else lives in sin?

Poor Mary and Joseph, lived in sin. Or were they simply in an "unnatural" marriage. After all, can Jews be considered as married in the eyes the Holy Mother the Church?


Still, the Bible says they were married. Why would the Holy Mother the Church go against the teachings of the Bible?

Ti-Guy said...

So everyone else lives in sin?

Actually, if you press the issue, I'm sure that's the absolute final answer you'll get from the Catholic Church.

There's no room for complexity or nuance here; pair-bonding for procreation, common law marriage, religious marriage and civil (ie legal) marriage are the Devil's way of grafting an unnatural complexity onto a very simple underlying reality.

I wish I could be as irrational to believe that as some others are. I'd be a much better Catholic, I'm sure.

toujoursdan said...

Only a Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) solemnized marriage entered into with the express purpose of procreating is a real marriage. Everything else is sin.

You can't get married unless you intend to have children according to the RCC.

Chimera said...

"Sine ty-guy asked "WTF is "natural marriage?" I will explain it: It is a marriage consecrated by Holy Mother the Church."

But...since the church is a man-made institution, and consecration is a man-made concept, then anything "made" by these two constructs cannot be called "natural," can it?

Back to the drawing board, Seer!

liberal supporter said...

If I was married in some other lesser faith, or even only civilly married, would the Holy Mother the Church refuse to marry me due to being already married?

The Seer said...

liberal supporter said...
"How can we expect you to accurately report what the book of mumbo jumbo says, when you can't even read 20 lines here with comprehension? But . . . it sounds like only the Roman Catholic Church's marriages are "natural". So everyone else lives in sin?"

Well, yes.

This isn't rocket science; it's religion for Christ's sake.

And yes, Holy Mother the Church will allow you to [re]marry someone else in the Church if your first "marriage" was performed outside the Church.

As far as Mary & Joseph were concerned — though I do not understand how this is supposed to relate to the legitimacy of Our Lord Jesus Christ — do I have to spell that out for you? — they were married under the old dispensation before Our Lord Jesus Christ did the Peter & the Rock number. ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock l build my Church.")

Now, as a previous post pointed out, we are dealing with a Natural Law issue here. Everyone knows, or at least everyone I know knows, that The Natural Law was articulated by St. Thomas, three hundred years before the Protestant Reformation. Thomistic or, if you prefer, Scholastic Natural Law theory is a substantial element of Catholic theology.

Finally, Catholics do not have the same orientation to the book of mumbo jumbo that Protestants have. And here, my nerve fails. Lets just say that Catholics feel the book of mumbo jumbo is one of many sources of theology and doctrine and let it at that.

liberal supporter said...

And yes, Holy Mother the Church will allow you to [re]marry someone else in the Church if your first "marriage" was performed outside the Churc

Actually that was a leading question. I wanted to get at whether the previous marriage is recognized at all, i.e. you have to end that non-RC marriage before they will marry you. If so, they do in fact recognize it. If not, then they are (maybe) sanctioning bigamy in the secular law system.

they were married under the old dispensation
Yes, I forgot the new covenant escape clause. It gets Moses and Abraham into Heaven as well. Very good.

Natural Law theory is a substantial element of Catholic theology.
The "natural law" is always used by anyone trying to boost their side by giving it the patina of being "natural". Only problem is, everyone claims they are following the natural law

Lets just say that Catholics feel the book of mumbo jumbo is one of many sources of theology and doctrine and let it at that.
As one of the oldest continuously functioning institutions in the world, it has tried very hard to maintain a single canon and avoid heresies (including all the horrors of past centuries in stamping out heresies).

Yet today we see those in the mainstream of the Church hierarchy willing to be reasonable i.e. many parts of the Bible can be taken as allegorical and should not be taken literally. We now see those who would hold themselves out as speaking for the Church, such as the Catholic League, as the forces of medieval rigidity.

So in a similar way you will find Protestants with varying orientations to the book of mumbo jumbo.

liberal supporter said...

I forgot to reference this when I was speaking of the mainstream of the Church being willing to be reasonable today.