tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499558816764473275.post3194259357842068074..comments2023-03-24T11:06:43.255-04:00Comments on The Spark and the Flame: As a Catholic, I Support Marriage EqualityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499558816764473275.post-69205531075887705402013-03-27T15:22:59.595-04:002013-03-27T15:22:59.595-04:00Jessica, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Her...Jessica, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Here's my sense, <br /><br />1. I think that any analogy breaks down when you get too close to it; a perfect 1:1 representation wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the direct comparison of a thing to itself. So to see if an analogy is good, I think it doesn't have to be perfect, just close enough to make the point. <br />So what is the point of the alcoholism analogy? Well, to correct the idea that love is simply a matter of mere tolerance and leaving a person the way they are. Leaving an alcoholic the way he is would not be love. I guess, I am not sure I see that this comparison would reduce a person with same sex attraction to being a mere object, though I'm perfectly open to suggestions for another analogy.<br /><br />2. I agree completely. I don't expect that this sort of post will contribute much to causing a person with homosexual feelings not to live those feelings out. That would, as you say, best be done on a personal basis coming from people that person knows. But, a post like this or discussing this issue, may still have some value in shaping the culture that such decisions and conversations take place in. No conversation takes place in a vacuum, and there may be some value in trying to shape the culture into understanding certain issues expressed here, ie., love of persons with homosexual desires need not mean accepting those desires, etc.<br /><br />3. Should marriage be a civil institution? I don't know. I don't insist it should be and certainly, I never got married for the tax benefit (seriously, my taxes just got more complicated!). I think the reason I lean toward wanting the govt. to recognize marriage is not for my benefit, but for the benefit of society. I think society has suffered as marriage has declined over the second half of the 20th century. Second, I think marriage is an important safeguard against the tyranny of the state. Chesterton said, "The truth is that only men to whom the family is sacred will ever have a standard or a status by which to criticize the state. They alone can appeal to something more holy than the gods of the city; the gods of the hearth." Anyway, I don't insist on this, but it is a point that does concern me. <br /><br />My two cents; thanks for your thoughts :)Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17587579611521258606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499558816764473275.post-37619086884224831352013-03-27T12:00:41.069-04:002013-03-27T12:00:41.069-04:00Matthias - since I agree with you in general, I ho...Matthias - since I agree with you in general, I hope you don't mind my critiques of some of the ways you've expressed your argument:<br />- I dislike the comparison between alcoholism and homosexuality. Alcoholism is the disordered appetite for an OBJECT. Homosexuality is the disordered attraction for a PERSON. To compare the two seems to reduce people to objects. I think that in this conversation, it's important to keep in mind the fact that the relationship between two gay people who want to get married is an actual relationship based in emotional and sexual connections. It is also based in sinful actions/desires, but I don't think that totally erases the love/affection that does exist. <br /><br />- I agree that part of love means calling someone to live more fully in God's plan, but I think it's a type of love best expressed in very close, solid relationships. (Perhaps there is a special charism for those people called to love entire groups of people with this level of intensity, and to work for group conversion...I'm not sure.) Imagine someone trying to talk you out of marrying Elizabeth. It might have worked, if it came from a person who knew you extremely well, and whom you trusted completely, but I'm sure that you would have rejected that message coming from 99% of the people you know. (My dad went against his parents' council in marrying a Catholic.) <br /><br />- The Catholic church will continue to proclaim and defend God's definition of marriage, no matter what the Supreme Court decides. To be honest, at this point in the debate I'm sort of wondering why marriage is a civil institution anyway. I can see the benefits to society of giving special benefits to the parents of children, but I'm not sure why the government should be recognizing certain relationships between two adults, especially now that even "traditional" marriages don't require openness to children, permanence of vows, combining property rights/finances, etc. <br /><br />- Again, overall I agree with you and I appreciate your thoughtful contribution. :)Jessicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435555064199584507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499558816764473275.post-85206039052042602942013-03-27T09:19:39.210-04:002013-03-27T09:19:39.210-04:00Excellent post!Excellent post!Thomas Fullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06807348105262955059noreply@blogger.com