Should Disordered Appetites be Civil Rights? Comments
The Catholic Church will not change its position on the nature of marriage because it cannot. Truth is not up for grabs. Continue Reading
21 - 30 of 113 Comments
Leave a Comment
Most Popular
Editorial: Is the Scandal Ridden Obama Administration Becoming a House of Cards? Read More
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Did God make junk? Scientists say 98 percent of human genome is junk Read More
Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military? Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 1:1-10
All wisdom comes from the Lord, she is with him for ever. The ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 93:1, 1-2, 5
Yahweh is king, robed in majesty, robed is Yahweh and girded ... Read More
Gospel, Mark 9:14-29
As they were rejoining the disciples they saw a large crowd ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. Bernardine of Siena
May 20: In the year 1400, a young man came to the door of the largest ... Read More
Marketplace
Spiritual Warfare: Attack Against the Woman Read More
Crucifixes Hand Carved out of Lidenwood
Our crucifixes have been, designed and carved by Catholics for ... Read More
Lou, I couldn't have put it better. It's nice to have someone on hear who shares my opinion AND knows how to argue.
You'r right, it is a civil right. The Church and and Catholics can lobby, but we should have no control over the government. The Church recognizes separation of church and state as necessary. Why doesn't it apply here?
In answer to Pete Brady, re “While a number of opinions have been advanced on the original article as well as some of the responses, it does not seem as if the question, "should disordered appetites be civil rights?," has really been answered.
It would seem obvious, without being specific as to what is "disordered," that disordered appetites of any kind are not worthy of being deemed a "right."”
It depends. The law isn’t there to control our personal, moral behaviour, or at least I hope it’s not. The state should not have the right, imo, to tell me how to live my life. My moral choices are my own, and my appetites are my own to control, disordered or otherwise. If my sexual appetites only involve other consenting adults, and don’t involve sex in a public place where someone else might be scared or threatened by my behaviour, then, it’s a moral matter, not a legal matter.
So, when it comes to civil rights, as you define them, then, yes, disordered appetites are a citizen’s right to act on or not act on, as they choose for themselves. I don’t think it should be the state’s role to choose which appetites are disordered and which are not.
And, if we are defining disordered appetites, being “specific as to what is “disordered” then the question is – who gets to define what disordered means? It seems that the Catholic Church should only get to do so in situations that they have the right to control. That is, within the catholic faith and the running of the catholic church. So, if they went to sack a priest for having sex, that is of course their right. However, the Catholic Church is not a branch of the government, so they should have no role in deciding whether something is a right – although, of course, they can lobby like everyone else.
“Merely claiming that something is a "civil right" does not make it so. To make it a "civil right" requires the action of civil law.”
Sure, to be legally a civil right, it of course has to be passed as a law! However, you can point out an injustice in the existing civil rights that implies that something should be made law that people deserve, if we are to live in a society where everyone is treated the same under the law.
The absence of same sex unions (whatever you call them, and I don’t think many gay people would mind not calling it marriage, provided that they had all the same legal rights as straight married couples) in many states and many countries all over the world is, in my view, an injustice. The US is not a theocracy, so theological rules should not be used to determine law. And, setting theology aside, what justification is there under law that a gay couple is somehow less deserving of rights such as hospital visitation or residence (in the case of foreign partners)?
Creating separate civil unions that have nothing to do with church marriage seems a perfectly good solution. It confers legal rights without encroaching on the sacred.
What the author of this article and those who think as he does fail to understand, is that homosexuality is not a choice and it is entirely natural. Did you get that? I'll say it again. Homosexuality is not a choice.
I know for a fact that sexuality is not a choice, because I chose heterosexuality, which as it turned out was a decision against my own nature. I believed the Church when I was told that choosing to be a homosexual was immoral. I believed that I was thinking disgusting thoughts, when in reality I was doing what every other young man around me was doing: I was dreaming of my ideal life partner and what life would be like when we could be together.
What I didn't realize at the time, was that I had not chosen this. It was simply part of who I am. The only difference between my brothers and I, is that I am attracted to men and they are attracted to women. Believe me when I tell you that after 31 years as a heterosexual, and 26 years of marriage to a loving and passionate woman I am a gay man. There is nothing I can do to change that fact. I can no longer engage in heterosexual acts. I have fought depression for many years now, because I have been fighting to be something I simply cannot sustain.
So, your entire argument seems to be based on the 'natural' assumption that the Church should be guiding society and deciding what is or is not acceptable behaviour. I am here to tell you that you should not be deciding for me. You should not be deciding how I am to live my life. I get to decide what I want. I feel that as long as I am not harming others with my behavior, that I can do what I please. That should include being able to live my life with the partner of my choice, based on my natural attraction.
So, I think the Church and all the other churches should stop their social engineering and get out of my life!
While a number of opinions have been advanced on the original article as well as some of the responses, it does not seem as if the question, "should disordered appetites be civil rights?," has really been answered.
It would seem obvious, without being specific as to what is "disordered," that disordered appetites of any kind are not worthy of being deemed a "right."
Merely claiming that something is a "civil right" does not make it so. To make it a "civil right" requires the action of civil law. To get there many advance the notion of a "civil right" as if it already, in fact, was. And that the action of law is merely the stamp of approval upon their demand.
Their demand is posited as, even seen as, something inherent to our human nature, a natural right. But it is natural law that gives us our natural rights. And natural law grants no natural right to any disordered appetite.
For many of us a natural right is thought of as, given expression as, being a "God-given right."
It would be impossible to conceive of anything associated with, attending to, or proceeding from homosexuality as being a "God-given" anything. While each of us is made in the "image and likeness of God," and could thus be considered "God-given" in our own personhood as a result, this does not impart the same to our actions.
Homosexual conduct is not a "God-given right." Same-sex unions are not a "God-given right." Same-sex marriage is not a "God-given right." The civil right to same-sex marriage does not exist. To grant it is to pervert law as well as common sense.
fred - I was calling Reciful's comment sexist because it implied that a woman's only role in life is to produce children, and that a man is superior to a woman. One of women's roles is to give birth, but that isn't the only role!
Woman's role is to give life, be it physically or spiritually. It is not sexist --- but acknowledgment of the female sex! A woman can do much - and her very nature is to bring forth life.
Reciful:
"Everything has a purpose, and an action is wrong if it goes against this purpose. Women have a role to play - the producing of children - but their role does not include having authority over a man."
This statement implies that a woman's only role is to produce children, and that a man has an authority over women. How sexist is that? You give Catholicism a bad name when you say things like that. Certainly, a woman can do more than produce children. Otherwise, we'd all be keeping our wives locked up all the time!
Actually, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM because of violent disruptions at scientific meetings and threats by homosexual activists. The APA chose the path of appeasement, as did the Church, which got us the sex abuse problem. This issue will not go away, regardless of how people want to whitewash it. Homosexuality is a disorder that blinds people to what they are doing. The proof of the disorder is in the behavior of its proponents. Look at San Francisco as the example of the result of accepting homosexuality as normal.
Vijeya: I saw your comment and couldn't help feeling that you're a kindred spirit. Praise God that you're back with the Catholic Church. I will pray for you. My recommendation is to turn inward toward the Church, study everything that Catholic Church has to offer on history, encyclicals, prayers, etc. God bless you.
Very well put, Melissa. Even though I agree with some things that Reciful stated, he seemed to forget that Biblical history show that women have greater roles than being instruments of procreation. After all, Mary played a significant role in Jesus's life; an angel would not have addressed as such were she merely just "the vessel that carried our Lord" as some Protestant apologists try to reason. Nor would she be crowned Queen of Heaven.
I cheered when I read Pete's comment, as I had been planning to post a long and complicate comment specifying just as much. It is a shame that so many people have diverted the argument toward a fixation regarding the analogy of obesity to "sin". I found Deacon Fournier's example to be quite apt on the issue, and how something that was originally good for humanity (as eating is to sustenance, so too is sex to procreation) can become a detriment to one's health (spiritually, mentally, and physically).
Promiscuity's consequences can have equally damaging effects upon a person's psyche as obesity (embarassment, depression, suicidal thoughts, emptiness, hyperactivity in the behavior as a means of escape or seeking self-affirmation, etc.).
Loving someone doesn't mean letting them do what harms them. When we fail to encourage each to walk the so-called "straight and narrow path", our sin is one of omission. However, when we practically encourage them to do so because we feel that the issue won't go away, it becomes commission. True, Homosexuality is no new lifestyle (it was around during Paul's time, as well as Lot's and Abraham's time). Jesus COULD have taken the initiative and stated something then, but by all accounts, He didn't taken any steps to "set the record straight". Why now must the Church change, the Bible's be rewritten or torn apart, and new laws be set forth to force conformed affirmation of a lifestyle that is clearly contrary to God's plan? I think only think of one being behind this.