Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Well, James, is it so wrong to have HOPE? LOL Even *I* (Miss Anti-religion Herself!) have hope about this new pope... why not? Anyone is better than the last one! Anyone. Lets just hope the catholics are not disappointed!
My Catholic friends are excited and thrilled. They have no idea who this new old-white-male is, but they're excited and thrilled nonetheless. It's odd how they have such hope and devotion towards this man who they never knew existed till today.
Hey, friends in the Dhamma! It's actually not odd that Catholics tend to "have such hope and devotion towards this man who they never new existed till [yester]day." It's par for the course for such emotions to be outpoured at the election of a new pope. It's a thrilling thing for me, even, a lapsed Catholic, since you'll always love your Mother (which the Church is for my childhood, my best friend). It's a sincere, spontaneous reaction which often leaves people in tears; I don't have to work hard to suppress mine, but I do get somewhat tingly and in festive mood. It's not completely unanalagous to the birth of a child into a family. And, of course, those whom you pray for will always be dearer to your heart. The church prays for the Pope.
It's so silly that these silly old men (many of whom sound like old hens) make all these pronouncements on human sexuality. I mean, what are their qualifications? What are their experiences? ...
I'm not clear why it's any more silly for them than it would be for any other religious leader, including monks. And even if they've been non-sexual, as humans don't they have as much right to an opinion as anyone?
It's not a matter of comparison, to my mind. It's the Tone they take; a bishop or archbishop speaks with a different "authority," and they just do seem silly pontificating on things "below their paygrade," as it were, in that way. Whether they're silly or not, they appear that way to many good and conscientious churchpeople. Silliness, it need not be pointed out, is not an objectively observable quality anyhow, but is merely a subjective judgment or mood. One can be in very jocular mood and feel silly, see the same kind of mood in others and call it silliness, or one can see a notion, idea, or action as nonsensical and call it silly. No matter, the matter may have some sense, but your mood cannot detect any rationale at all.
Silly is a kind of silly word not meant to be taken in a judgmental way at all.
I am an ex-Catholc. I wish the Church well. I understand and respect the support it gives to traditional marriage . The recent scandals have deservedly been a "trying-out " period in a Melvillian sense. They are boiling in their own oil. All the money collected in boxes each Sunday goes to pay the victims of the criminal priests. But I do not want the principals of the institution to change. I too want traditional marriage :one man and one woman supported. If men marry men as is their "right" then so too should two men marry one woman and so on. This is destabilizing to society. I am for stability and fear the "brave new world " envisioned by some. Am I naive ? Am I simple? Perhaps I am . There are many like me out here who fear the outcome of such change to marriage would create instability as we believe the family unit as it stands to be the basis of said stability. I fear what would replace this long -standing , traditional institution. Should I? When I committed to my wife , forsaking all others , I did it for us all. My marriage (unless some great evil is perpetrated by my partner) is forever. I would prefer many sexual partners but I forgo this natural urge as tribute to the institution I have such respect for. I do not see that same level of commitment in these modern ( gay and polygamous ) unions and therefore fear them. I do believe in slippery slopes. I see common Catholic people and their church as a refuge for such ideas: no abortion, no. Redefining marriage. People , simple people, need to believe in the stability, the predictability, of such an institution as the Catholic Church . Are they entirely wrong and your ideas , new and radical, correct? Are you so sure that the changes that will come from the inevitable redefining of marriage (I believe the ship has sailed) will be for the good? I hope you are right . .
I believe and hope this day , the day of this new pope , will bring the Church further from the recent disgusting abuses and closer to a new holiness if you will. I think this can only be a good thing and I rejoice in it.
And @federica, perhaps you should stop reading British news if they wallow so in Catholic bashing. It cannot be good for you. I like you fed.
All of this about Argentinian journalist Horacio Verbitsky's book, El Silencio: de Paulo VI a Bergoglio: las relaciones secretas de la Iglesia con la ESMA (Silence: from Paulo VI to Bergoglio: secret relations of the Church with the ESMA) is mentioned in the current Wikipedia article on the newly elected Pope. But have you read the actual facts presented in the book?
I thought there were 3 considerations about spreading rumours: 1) Is it true?
Looks like I should have taken your advice, Nirvy. While the allegation abut his complicity in the two kidnappings is true, it seems the other is less so. The two-year old Guardian I linked to was apparently edited this morning:
This article was amended on 14 March 2013. The original article, published in 2011, wrongly suggested that Argentinian journalist Horacio Verbitsky claimed that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio connived with the Argentinian navy to hide political prisoners on an island called El Silencio during an inspection by human rights monitors. Although Verbitsky makes other allegations about Bergoglio's complicity in human right abuses, he does not make this claim. The original article also wrongly described El Silencio as Bergoglio's "holiday home". This has been corrected.
But I do not want the principals of the institution to change. I too want traditional marriage :one man and one woman supported. If men marry men as is their "right" then so too should two men marry one woman and so on. This is destabilizing to society. I am for stability and fear the "brave new world " envisioned by some. Am I naive ? Am I simple? Perhaps I am . There are many like me out here who fear the outcome of such change to marriage would create instability as we believe the family unit as it stands to be the basis of said stability. I fear what would replace this long -standing , traditional institution. Should I? When I committed to my wife , forsaking all others , I did it for us all. My marriage (unless some great evil is perpetrated by my partner) is forever. I would prefer many sexual partners but I forgo this natural urge as tribute to the institution I have such respect for. I do not see that same level of commitment in these modern ( gay and polygamous ) unions and therefore fear them. I do believe in slippery slopes.
For what it's worth, in my experience, gay people aren't anymore promiscuous than straight people. In fact, most of the gay people I know are in committed, long-term relationships. And evidence suggests that gay parents are good parents. So I don't think you really have much to worry about. I think society can handle the legal union of loving, same-sex couples.
Jason, I agree on something you said —Just Now! However, I don't think it's yet been proven that the allegation about Bergoglio's complicity in the two kidnappings is true, as you stated.
.......But I Do Find This Whole Papacy Thing Very Interesting!...........................................
I haven't read a lot about it, as to timing, etc, but I have undergone a lot of critical study of the New Testament in my lifetime, especially in college. There were a lot of factions in the early church, and had St. James, the Lord's "Brother," survived the massacre by the Romans in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the primacy of Peter would arguably perhaps not have survived into the Christian New Testament canon. Who knows, perhaps there might have been some heriditary primogeniture in an alternate kind of papacy that might have survived for centuries? (Kind of like in Islam)
As it is, for some reason, Christian scripture provided for the Primacy of Peter, which allowed for the primacy of his successors. This is at least interesting, is it not?
I'm not Catholic, and never have been. Several of the people in my sangha come from a catholic background, many of them decades worth of it. Some of them are very angry about ever having been Catholic, I find that interesting. Anyhow, I hope Pope Francis does a good job as leader of the people he is charged to lead. I hope he helps restore some faith in the church for them. I hope he has a good influence over them. He has a big job ahead of him. Apparently Pope John Paul (the second? Don't remember) was responsible for bringing many people who left the church, back. It seems they are hoping Pope Francis will do the same. That's just from various opinion pieces and such though.
I find it interesting that I see a touch of the same anti-Pope hysteria here, too.... If you don't agree with the Catholic church, and can't abide their right to uphold their own religious laws and rules -- no matter HOW archaic or politically incorrect they may be -- well by golly, Don't Be A Catholic.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who find the religious aspect of Buddhism and its rules pretty archaic and politically incorrect, no?
This is what I don't really understand about this thread.
Back in the very late 1960s, when I was still a Catholic, a friend of mine was getting married who was a Methodist. Catholics were supposed to get permission from a priest before going to a non-Catholic religious service. I thought it was perfunctory, but was actually told I couldn't go. I looked at the priest and said, "Tough shit. I'm going," and turned and walked away. And I know quite a few Catholics, and while they may not say things like that to a priest, they pretty much follow their own path within the church. They go to confession if they want to, and many don't at all. They don't go to most holy days of obligation. They don't believe in papal infallibility. Etc. In other words, they treat their Catholic faith pretty much the way most of us here treat our Buddhist faith.
Frankly, it sometimes seems as if non-Catholics are more concerned with Catholicism than many Catholics.
Jason said: For what it's worth, in my experience, gay people aren't anymore promiscuous than straight people. In fact, most of the gay people I know are in committed, long-term relationships. And evidence suggests that gay parents are good parents. So I don't think you really have much to worry about. I think society can handle the legal union of loving, same-sex couples.
@jason Yes, anecdotally I suspect you are right. I am talking about a conservative Catholic marriage. I am talking about the principal of marriage being forever and monogamous . From my experience with gay unions, there is a lot of wiggle room here. Since I believe that the principal of monogamy is stabilizing, I support the Church's efforts in this regard. I am not claiming they are holier than thou,or me,or a gay union , I am saying that a bisexual will demand their union be sanctioned and further unions of this type will be argued and eventually sanctioned and in the end it will not be good for society. I may be wrong and I suspect neither of us will live to find out. I think the gay rights movement has taken the narrow view in demanding the redefinition of marriage.
If you remove gay marriage from the table, and look at the current state of hetero marriage, is it anything to brag about? Look at countries that allow gay marriage freely. Many of them are in a far better state socially than we are. They said the same thing about biracial marriage 60 years ago. That it would destroy the fabric of society, that bad things would happen. Have they? Has allowing people of different races to marry been the downfall of society? Not hardly. Same arguments were made "eventually if we let blacks and white marry, then people will want to marry their sisters, their goats, and OMG they might want to marry more than one person even." Didn't happen then, won't happen now. Most people who are bisexual are not polyamorous. They aren't the same thing.
To add to that, my mother is Catholic. She has been married 3 times. Her husband has been married twice. My husband's Catholic cousin has 4 children by 4 different mothers and hasn't married one of them. My best friend, who is gay, has been with his partner, monogamously for 16 years. Yes, it is anecdotal, but it is a reason you cannot base all of society and the decisions for how to run it on one religion. Equal rights means equal rights. Not separate but equal. Gay marriage isn't going to destroy the church's version of marriage. Not everyone shares the churches views, not even on monogamy, and they shouldn't have to follow the rules of a church they are not members of.
I volunteer at an Italian long-term care facility, and when I went today, all the old Italian ladies were crushed. They all had different bets going on which Italian guy would become the next pope
I volunteer at an Italian long-term care facility, and when I went today, all the old Italian ladies were crushed. They all had different bets going on which Italian guy would become the next pope
LOL See what happens when you take away BINGO? Gambling on the pope! ;-)
Unfortunately, it's not quite as simply as that. They may be opinions, but they're opinions that the Catholic Church exerts its considerable weight and resources towards imposing on society as whole, not just practicing Catholics. In just one of the many examples here in the US, church leaders spent nearly $2 million last year fighting against gay marriage in four states.
What I don't understand is that you seem to feel it's okay for the pro-gay-marriage forces to have a viewpoint, support it with funding and demonstrations, but you don't seem to feel it's okay for the anti-gay-marriage forces to have a viewpoint, support it with funding and demonstrations.
Freedom of thought and action only exists when everyone is free to express themselves.
The Catholic chuch has the right to believe and preach whatever they like. However, by throwing money into political campaigns and heavily lobbying they are ignoring the separation of church and state. If they wish to do this, then they should give up their tax exempt status. I'm not anti-Catholic, but I am very much for separation of church and state as that separation ensures everyone's freedom.
Whether or not someone can legally marry, have access to contraception and legal safe abortion is not something that should be decided by a religious group. A church has the right to decide not to marry a gay couple, but there is no reason why that same couple can't go to the courthouse and have their union legally recognized. They can advise their congregants about reproductive issues, but they shouldn't seek to make decisions for those outside of their congregations.
I have a nephew who is a Jesuit and am e-mailing him this question:
I want to know if the new pope had to ask/get permission from some superior of his order to become Pope. I mean, as a member of a religious order, does he or does he not have to get permission for any change of job?
I thought a fellow Jesuit might shed some light on this.
I am looking forward to the reply. The things you read in the press are so amateurish, yet Wikipedia continues to astound me. Forget public television and radio, send your extra quarters to Wikipedia!
Jason, I agree on something you said —Just Now! However, I don't think it's yet been proven that the allegation about Bergoglio's complicity in the two kidnappings is true, as you stated.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I said "the allegation about his complicity in the two kidnappings is true," as in, 'those allegations are real and have been documented by Verbitsky' — i.e., the fact that he's been accused of being complicit is true — whereas the one one about him being involved in the hiding of political prisoners isn't in the book as the Guardian article initially said it was. I never said the allegations themselves have been proven true, nor did I intend to imply that. Sorry if I was unclear.
The Catholic chuch has the right to believe and preach whatever they like. However, by throwing money into political campaigns and heavily lobbying they are ignoring the separation of church and state. If they wish to do this, then they should give up their tax exempt status. I'm not anti-Catholic, but I am very much for separation of church and state as that separation ensures everyone's freedom.
Whether or not someone can legally marry, have access to contraception and legal safe abortion is not something that should be decided by a religious group. A church has the right to decide not to marry a gay couple, but there is no reason why that same couple can't go to the courthouse and have their union legally recognized. They can advise their congregants about reproductive issues, but they shouldn't seek to make decisions for those outside of their congregations.
Yes, anecdotally I suspect you are right. I am talking about a conservative Catholic marriage. I am talking about the principal of marriage being forever and monogamous . From my experience with gay unions, there is a lot of wiggle room here. Since I believe that the principal of monogamy is stabilizing, I support the Church's efforts in this regard. I am not claiming they are holier than thou,or me,or a gay union , I am saying that a bisexual will demand their union be sanctioned and further unions of this type will be argued and eventually sanctioned and in the end it will not be good for society. I may be wrong and I suspect neither of us will live to find out. I think the gay rights movement has taken the narrow view in demanding the redefinition of marriage.
I still don't get it. I don't see how letting more than just hetero couples get married is going to destroy society. It's not like interracial marriages destroyed society even though people used to freak out that it would. I sincerely doubt allowing same-sex marriages, or even plural marriage, is gong to harm society, as if same-sex marriages or plural ones are any more unstable that tradition, hetero marriages. Show me some statistics at least. For example, a study done by the Williams Institute in 2011 found that, "In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates of different-sex couples. The percentage of those same sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually." Doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster to me.
Unfortunately, it's not quite as simply as that. They may be opinions, but they're opinions that the Catholic Church exerts its considerable weight and resources towards imposing on society as whole, not just practicing Catholics. In just one of the many examples here in the US, church leaders spent nearly $2 million last year fighting against gay marriage in four states.
What I don't understand is that you seem to feel it's okay for the pro-gay-marriage forces to have a viewpoint, support it with funding and demonstrations, but you don't seem to feel it's okay for the anti-gay-marriage forces to have a viewpoint, support it with funding and demonstrations.
Freedom of thought and action only exists when everyone is free to express themselves.
The Catholic chuch has the right to believe and preach whatever they like. However, by throwing money into political campaigns and heavily lobbying they are ignoring the separation of church and state. If they wish to do this, then they should give up their tax exempt status. I'm not anti-Catholic, but I am very much for separation of church and state as that separation ensures everyone's freedom.
Whether or not someone can legally marry, have access to contraception and legal safe abortion is not something that should be decided by a religious group. A church has the right to decide not to marry a gay couple, but there is no reason why that same couple can't go to the courthouse and have their union legally recognized. They can advise their congregants about reproductive issues, but they shouldn't seek to make decisions for those outside of their congregations.
Edited to add: this is in refrence to US law
Ah, now if you want to talk separation of church and state, I agree whole heartedly.
You'll note, however, that I was only discussing that we need to assure that all viewpoints have equal freedom of expression, even those viewpoints that we don't like.
Personally, I do not favor any tax exemptions for churches.
I read, without missing a beat, verbatim: <<While the allegation abut his complicity in the two kidnappings is true>> I don't mean to nitpick, since you really are brilliant, though human, but the language was misleading. [Not for you, Jason, but for any third party:] Some synonymns of "allegation," albeit not carrying the nuance of illegality or wrongful action are: statement, claim, assertion, charge, and contention That is the way I read it, namely, that the statement about his complicity in the two kidnappings is true.
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up!
We don't know what motivates the writer of an "exposé" book, how credible or trustworthy his sources might be, or even whether someone is deliberately trying to discredit someone. Therefore, I think Socrates' Triple Filter Test is a good barometer of goodwill towards our fellow citizens of the world. But if others want to make their mark by setting themselves up as judge and jury in some publication, we can't help that, I suppose. I guess we just have to trust that in the end it's just people doing what they see as their duty. But the thing is, the people that are "allegedly" being "exposed" in these books are probably doing their best to do their duty, weighing the good and the bad consequences of their actions and deciding as best they can the "right" thing to do.
In this case, we haven't heard Bergoglio's account of why he apparently failed to vouch for the two priests. Perhaps they were disobedient in some not insignificant matter? In which case his hands may have been tied, owing to the discipline of the Society of Jesus,
Re my Question I want to know if the new pope had to ask/get permission from some superior of his order to become Pope. I mean, as a member of a religious order, does he or does he not have to get permission for any change of job?
e-mail response by my nephew's father: Very good question.
I think that such protocol might be followed earlier in the career. When a religious order priest is appointed Bishop his line of authority is directly to the Pope and no longer to the Provincial.
@jason Hey thanks for addressing my argument, you a re such a smart guy. I cannot link(ineptness) but statistics are clear that religious , practicing Catholics ( and Protestants and to an incredible degree Orthodox Jews) have a much lower divorce rate than general population. These people pray at home, go to church, and follow the rules of the Church. I am not speaking of people who call themselves Catholic but abort, have irregular church attendance and do not pray at home. I never said society would be destroyed only that the result of these new unions will not be known in our lifetimes. I am defending the Catholic Church here which is sort of odd for an ex. I am also asserting my preference for the status quo . This is a post on the new pope which I wish had not turned into a bashing session led by angry alternate lifestyle folks. Thank you for addressing my point on plural unions , most do not , preferring to ignore what I believe is the key to my discomfort with the declaring gay rights a civil rights issue: in twenty years will they be where I am now and fight to keep marriage for two people only? And will plural union people trot out Martin Luther King? Why not? As I desire the status quo, I applaud the Church for supporting it. I want gays to have legal unions. I do not want plural unions recognized . But in fifty or sixty years the weight of this "injustice" will, I think be irrisistable. It is our kids and their kids who will have to sort it out. Will the impact of what has begun here be positive or negative? I do not know.
Just because people comment and disagree, doesn't make them angry and bashing, lol. I personally don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships. I don't think they destroy anyone either. Because people already have them. It makes the legal stuff a lot more difficult to deal with, but on a moral/social scale, I have no problem with it. I know people who have been in successful poly relationships for many, many years, and even have children. It works for them. Who am I to tell them they can't do it?
Supporting relationships and families as they grow together is a good thing, for all of us. They are already here, gay families, and they will continue to be here regardless of whether they have a certificate that tells them they are a legal couple. The only thing we do now is deny them benefits. Making it illegal does nothing to stop them from being gay or having families. Sometimes, things just need to change. Separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites was "status quo" rather recently. It was time for that to change. Few people today think it was the wrong decision to make. Gay marriage is the same deal.
Regardless of how you feel about plural marriages, why is it fair to deny it to gay couples because you don't want someone else to acquire marriage rights 50 years from now?
@jason Hey thanks for addressing my argument, you a re such a smart guy. I cannot link(ineptness) but statistics are clear that religious , practicing Catholics ( and Protestants and to an incredible degree Orthodox Jews) have a much lower divorce rate than general population. These people pray at home, go to church, and follow the rules of the Church. I am not speaking of people who call themselves Catholic but abort, have irregular church attendance and do not pray at home. I never said society would be destroyed only that the result of these new unions will not be known in our lifetimes. I am defending the Catholic Church here which is sort of odd for an ex. I am also asserting my preference for the status quo . This is a post on the new pope which I wish had not turned into a bashing session led by angry alternate lifestyle folks. Thank you for addressing my point on plural unions , most do not , preferring to ignore what I believe is the key to my discomfort with the declaring gay rights a civil rights issue: in twenty years will they be where I am now and fight to keep marriage for two people only? And will plural union people trot out Martin Luther King? Why not? As I desire the status quo, I applaud the Church for supporting it. I want gays to have legal unions. I do not want plural unions recognized . But in fifty or sixty years the weight of this "injustice" will, I think be irrisistable. It is our kids and their kids who will have to sort it out. Will the impact of what has begun here be positive or negative? I do not know.
"Angry alternate lifestyle folks"? That's a new one. lol I admit that my initial post was a bit hostile and probably not the most skillful response, and I should have put more time and thought into it. If I were to rewrite it, it'd be something more like:
The Catholic world has a new pope, and at first glance, Pope Francis (previously Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio) appears to be a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, Francis is theologically much like his predecessor, Pope Benedict, being decidedly conservative and adamantly opposed to abortion, contraception, the ordination of women priests, and same-sex marriage, and who publicly asserted in 2010 that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children (definitely no liberation theologian).
On the other, he has a reputation for being humble and rather austere, being more concerned about social outreach and issues like poverty and the effects of globalization than doctrinal battles. He's also known for calling out fellow church leaders for their hypocrisy, such as forgetting about the sick and the poor and for things like refusing to baptize the children of unwed mothers.
In addition, he's the first Jesuit to be elected pope, as well as the first to take the name Francis – reportedly after St. Francis of Assisi, although one can't help but suspect a slight nod towards St. Francis Xavier, co-founder of the Society of Jesus, as well – suggesting that his style may be markedly different from that of Benedict. In fact, his actions on his first day hint that Francis' papacy will be less traditional/flashy and meeker/more hands on than Benedict's.
The new pope isn't entirely free from controversy, though, and has been dogged by allegations that he may have been complicit in, or at least turned a blind-eye towards, some unsavory deeds committed by the 1976–1983 Argentinian military dictatorship, accusations that have been documented by Argentinian journalist Horacio Verbitsky's book, El Silencio: de Paulo VI a Bergoglio: las relaciones secretas de la Iglesia con la ESMA (Silence: from Paulo VI to Bergoglio: secret relations of the Church with the ESMA).
The most prominent allegation seems to be that Bergoglio was complicit in the 1976 kidnapping of two liberal Jesuit priests, a claim that was made by Orlando Yorio, one of the priests in question. He's also accused of "turning his back on the De la Cuadra family, which lost five relatives to state terror, including Estela’s sister Elena, who was five months' pregnant before she was kidnapped and killed in 1977."
His authorized biographer, however, tells a different story, one in which Bergoglio did everything he could to intervene and save the lives of the priests he's accused of putting into danger by withdrawing his order's protection of the them due to their work in the slums.
Whatever the truth of his alleged involvement in these affairs may be, I think it'll be interesting to see how his papacy will play out, especially considering the continued fallout from the Church's ongoing sex-abuse scandal and the leaked papal documents, which gave the world a peek into a corrupt and dysfunctional Vatican bureaucracy. It definitely looks like Francis is going to have his humble hands full, and it remains to be seen whether he'll live up to his namesake's call to "go and repair My house which, as you can see, is falling into ruins."
I apologize if I steered this thread into a bashfest of the new pope, and I appreciate @Nirvana's lesson via Socrates about 'spreading rumours.' Sometimes I need things like that. As for my comments about marriage, I still stand by them 100%, but will drop the issue.
Hey I only skimmed this thread but I didnt see any mention of something he said in his first speech..... It was an allegory about children playing with sand castles... And its relation to material desire. ??? Does any one else recognize this? I was alarmed to say the least. I only heard it paraphrased on NPR but.....
What was alarming about it? This is what he said The 76-year-old pontiff went as far as to liken a church that lost its spiritual focus to a child's sandcastle.
"What would happen would be like when children make sandcastle," said Francis. "Then it all comes crashing down."
What was alarming about it? This is what he said The 76-year-old pontiff went as far as to liken a church that lost its spiritual focus to a child's sandcastle.
"What would happen would be like when children make sandcastle," said Francis. "Then it all comes crashing down."
Isn't it an almost direct use of one of buddha's similes? ... Well from what you've posted I guess not, I thought I heard them say he made reference to them in the context of material desire
I heard he was knowledgable on ecology which if he implements what he knows about restoring earths natural resources into actions this popacy will be amazing.
I hink it's good they have branched out from Italy.
It alludes to Matt 7 which speaks of the wise man who builds his house upon the rock of Both hearing the teachings and doing them and the foolish man who only hears the words but doesn't follow them. He said:
Third, professing: we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ – I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy – “Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.
For "Jesus Christ," substitute "the Dhamma," to get the essence of the meaning.
That kind of stuff is exactly what turns me off of Christianity as a whole. I enjoy the message Jesus brought, but this idea that you are praying to the devil if you aren't praying to Jesus, Buddha, or whatever your choice might be just makes no sense to me. Probably because I don't believe in the devil, LOL. But just because you aren't doing one thing doesn't mean you are doing the other. I guess that fear-based stuff is what really bothers me in the end. There is just so much fear in so many Christians I know. I wouldn't want to live that way, which is why I don't. There seems to be so much love in Christianity, yet so much focus on fear of Hell and Satan and that if you aren't really really careful, the devil will take over your life and your brain and make you think things you don't really want to think and trick you and so on. So many people take that so literally and it's not something I understand. So thankful I found the Dharma!
That kind of stuff is exactly what turns me off of Christianity as a whole. I enjoy the message Jesus brought, but this idea that you are praying to the devil if you aren't praying to Jesus, Buddha, or whatever your choice might be just makes no sense to me.
I agree. It makes no sense and, seen from the outside, seems arrogant (which it often is, anyhow!) But bear in mind that this is all "insiders' talk" and is not therefore intentionally meant in a Christian fundamentalist way. In other words, this is theological language and not to be taken in the same spirit as the language spoken in the marketplace outside the hall where the congregants are sitting. Well, I'm putting it as well as I can right now.
Within the "group" a certain language is spoken, but it is meant to engage its members, and not the "whole world." (This takes on added complexity and confusion, though, when the context is that of "orbis et urbem," the globe and the city of the world -- you might call it an added layer of arrogance (etymologically from Latin arrogare, to claim, to claim exclusively) Taken outside that context, misunderstandings cannot help but arise.
It's unfortunate that religions rely on their symbols and divine personages to the extent that they often alienate other people of goodwill by making them feel excluded by not subscribing to these symbols and things in similar ways.
"But if we do not confess that we need a way out of our human predicament, nothing will avail" would be a more Buddhist interpretation of one line cited from above, in the place of confessing "Jesus Christ."
Perhaps instead of using the word dhamma as a substitute for Jesus Christ (to get the real essence of the intended impact in a more neutral religious setting).
Just because you aren't doing one thing doesn't mean you are doing the other. I guess that fear-based stuff is what really bothers me in the end. There is just so much fear in so many Christians I know. I wouldn't want to live that way, which is why I don't. There seems to be so much love in Christianity, yet so much focus on fear of Hell and Satan and that if you aren't really really careful, the devil will take over your life and your brain and make you think things you don't really want to think and trick you and so on. So many people take that so literally and it's not something I understand. So thankful I found the Dharma!
I think we're probably all with you on that, Karasti!
I read 'this.' recently in The Guardian, which touches on the sorts of things that are taught by religion teachers in Catholic high schools. I know; my sister Roxanne is one of them:
"Think about a diamond with all its different facets. Those facets are the various religions. If you put that diamond up to the light – God – it shines through every facet differently, creating a variety of beautiful colors."
The Roman Catholic Church does have very strong ecumenical parties that are really so interested in other religions and in conversing and working with their adherents. I like to be a friend of the churches as far as I can, and I hope you all will forgive me.
BTW, if you finish the article from The Guardian, it appears that the woman thinks she'll have to be rebaptized to become an Episcopalian. Hope she's not counting on it, since it's against the rules due to her already having been baptized. Unlike the Baptists and sometimes with Catholics, as long as you've been baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, it's supposed to stick. Baptists insist on total immersion, which was not practicable in cold, drafty cathedrals... (not even to mention the subject of infant baptism...)
I have a few questions about your arguments against homosexual marriage. First off, you claim that allowing gays monogamous homosexual marriage will lead down the slippery slope into abusive and destabilizing forms of polygamy. Yet, what would prevent two men and women, or vice versa, from living in an openly polygamous relationship right now? To my knowledge, nothing would. Having sexual relations outside of marriage, even with more than one individual, is perfectly legal. Allowing monogamous relationships between two men or two women wouldn't give people any more ability to live a polygamous lifestyle than they have now. It would only give gays the same legal rights as straight married couples - acceptance in the eyes of the secular state.
Assuming then that Catholics are still bothered by the idea of "traditional marriage" being dirtied by changing this definition - they need not have any fear! Assuming gay marriage would be legalized, the Catholic church wouldn't actually be required to marry gays. They would be married in other churches, religious institutions, or in secular state institutions. So, Catholic "traditional marriage" still exists - but isn't forced on to anybody else. See how we all win?
@mindgate If you assert that the gay lifestyle is not based on enjoying multiple partners , even in comitted, relationships, I can only say.... Yes it is. Now you say No it is not. I know ( and love)plenty of gay couples here in Los Angeles. My argument is based on the belief that stable homes and families are better than unstable , and one man with one woman together in a marriage is the ideal. The Church supports this view so I support the Church and do not wish to see it mocked.
I am a status quo guy. Perhaps all will be well in the USA with these new alternative arrangements, perhaps not. I do know that if gays can marry then polygamy will return as another form of marriage. I do not want this. Instead of facing uncertainty , I prefer supporting the status quo . I welcome to legal unions my homosexual friends, (except bi sexuals whom I will make choose one or the other: f*ck their civil rights) and encourage lawmakers to change all laws which discriminate.
Gay, straight, bi, trans have committed, monogamous relationship. They can also be promiscuous. They can cheat on partners. None of these problems exists only in the "gay lifestyle."
That said, I'm astounded that anyone, much less in a Buddhist forum, will ever say "fuck their civil rights" and honestly right now I wish this page had a block function. I don't mind if people don't agree with me. But to claim someone doesn't deserve civil rights because they are different from you, is beyond my understanding. You realize civil rights go far beyond simply who marries who, right? Why would you deny another person basic civil rights?
You know gays can marry in other states and countries, right? And there hasn't been a push for polygamy in those areas since that time? NY has had gay marriage for 10 years now. Still no polygamy...
@mindgate If you assert that the gay lifestyle is not based on enjoying multiple partners , even in comitted, relationships, I can only say.... Yes it is. Now you say No it is not. I know ( and love)plenty of gay couples here in Los Angeles. My argument is based on the belief that stable homes and families are better than unstable , and one man with one woman together in a marriage is the ideal. The Church supports this view so I support the Church and do not wish to see it mocked.
I'm curious, @sndymorn, about why you continue to assert that gay couples are less committed than hetero couples, as well as imply that gay unions are inherently more unstable and will be a slippery slope to something bad if gay marriage is legalized, despite ample evidence to the contrary, both anecdotal as well as statistical. What exactly are you basing this on besides what appears to be a personal bias against gay marriage and relationships in general? Also, if I may ask, why do you believe that your opinions about gay marriage, which seem to have a partially religious basis, should be imposed onto same-sex couples in a secular society, effectively denying them equal treatment under the law despite the Supreme Court's ruling that 'separate but equal' (in this case, marriage for hetero couples vs. civil unions for same-sex couples) is unconstitutional?
So gay marriage will undoubtedly lead down the slippery slope to the destruction of America and traditional family life as we know it. Really...?
They used to say the same thing about giving slaves their freedom; and about allowing mixed race couples from marrying; and about giving Women the vote; and letting women in the workforce -above the traditional "service jobs" like teacher, waitress, maid, etc; and about allowing women in the military. And they used to say the same thing about repealing alcohol prohibition, and seeing a pregnant woman in public, or showing a married man and woman sleeping in one bed - not two, (on TV), and a lot of other things too... all nonsense!
Slippery slope arguments are the weakest arguments to be made, because they are only based on fear, not facts or stats.
Edited to add; I don't even get what the big deal is with Polygamy or poly-amorous arrangements. How does that harm anyone else? What is the problem? If a man or woman wants to share their lives and commit to a solid relationship based on love and responsibility... who cares if it's with two women/men, or three or four? I don't. Doesn't affect MY life. Doesn't scare me in any way. I don't believe the government should have any right nor reason to restrict or outlaw committed relationships between adult HUMAN BEINGS of any gender or number- for any reason at all. Religious organizations- different story - they can restrict, refuse, revile whatever they like.... those whose marriage needs can't be met within those religious confines will go elsewhere, like others have said. There is no reason to force religious rules amongst those who are not involved in that religion.
I don't think so either, @MaryAnne. I can see why under our current system why polygamous relationships are more difficult as far as legal benefits and such. But as far as socially and morally, not at all. I know people who have been, and currently are in poly relationships, and you'd never know it unless they told you. Some of them even *gasp* raise children. Even within benefits, I think it can be made to work. If the Duggar family can have 19 children and provide insurance for them all, then why can't a woman have 2 husbands and provide insurance for them, or vice versa? I just don't think that the government, or anyone else's religions should have a say into what kind of family I have. Kids benefit from having more diverse and expanded families.
He's barely been Pope for 5 minutes and he has already annoyed me, he says that the Falkland Islands should belong to Argentina when only 3 out 1,500 people who where asked in a referendum there said that they did not think that the falklands should not remain british, that is 0.2%! It should be what the inhabitants want.
To be honest, I think there is more promiscuity in the gay community. But I also think that, to some extent, gays have been sort of forced into that lifestyle.
However, I have a tough time seeing any concrete way in which gay civil unions or marriage are going to fundamentally change -- for the worse -- life in America. We heard that about interracial marriages, and I can't see a negative there at all. And, in my view, being able to be in a legal relationship will probably moderate the gay lifestyle over time.
He's barely been Pope for 5 minutes and he has already annoyed me, he says that the Falkland Islands should belong to Argentina when only 3 out 1,500 people who where asked in a referendum there said that they did not think that the falklands should not remain british, that is 0.2%! It should be what the inhabitants want.
He's barely been Pope for 5 minutes and he has already annoyed me, he says that the Falkland Islands should belong to Argentina when only 3 out 1,500 people who where asked in a referendum there said that they did not think that the falklands should not remain british, that is 0.2%! It should be what the inhabitants want.
But how many home-born Argentinians vs other ethnicities were among those who were polled or voted? Remember, stats are so easily manipulated. Also, it's not so unusual for colonization to be viewed as intrusive and outdated- all over the world, and as @vinlyn said, majority doesn't always get to rule simply because of their numbers.
" I think it can be made to work. If the Duggar family can have 19 children and provide insurance for them all, then why can't a woman have 2 husbands and provide insurance for them, or vice versa? "
That is an excellent comparison. And completely reasonable and logical.
Comments
Well, James, is it so wrong to have HOPE? LOL
Even *I* (Miss Anti-religion Herself!) have hope about this new pope... why not? Anyone is better than the last one! Anyone. Lets just hope the catholics are not disappointed!
It's actually not odd that Catholics tend to "have such hope and devotion towards this man who they never new existed till [yester]day." It's par for the course for such emotions to be outpoured at the election of a new pope. It's a thrilling thing for me, even, a lapsed Catholic, since you'll always love your Mother (which the Church is for my childhood, my best friend). It's a sincere, spontaneous reaction which often leaves people in tears; I don't have to work hard to suppress mine, but I do get somewhat tingly and in festive mood. It's not completely unanalagous to the birth of a child into a family. And, of course, those whom you pray for will always be dearer to your heart. The church prays for the Pope.
It's not a matter of comparison, to my mind. It's the Tone they take; a bishop or archbishop speaks with a different "authority," and they just do seem silly pontificating on things "below their paygrade," as it were, in that way. Whether they're silly or not, they appear that way to many good and conscientious churchpeople. Silliness, it need not be pointed out, is not an objectively observable quality anyhow, but is merely a subjective judgment or mood. One can be in very jocular mood and feel silly, see the same kind of mood in others and call it silliness, or one can see a notion, idea, or action as nonsensical and call it silly. No matter, the matter may have some sense, but your mood cannot detect any rationale at all.
Silly is a kind of silly word not meant to be taken in a judgmental way at all.
But I do not want the principals of the institution to change. I too want traditional marriage :one man and one woman supported. If men marry men as is their "right" then so too should two men marry one woman and so on. This is destabilizing to society. I am for stability and fear the "brave new world " envisioned by some.
Am I naive ? Am I simple? Perhaps I am . There are many like me out here who fear the outcome of such change to marriage would create instability as we believe the family unit as it stands to be the basis of said stability. I fear what would replace this long -standing , traditional institution. Should I? When I committed to my wife , forsaking all others , I did it for us all. My marriage (unless some great evil is perpetrated by my partner) is forever. I would prefer many sexual partners but I forgo this natural urge as tribute to the institution I have such respect for. I do not see that same level of commitment in these modern ( gay and polygamous ) unions and therefore fear them. I do believe in slippery slopes.
I see common Catholic people and their church as a refuge for such ideas: no abortion, no. Redefining marriage. People , simple people, need to believe in the stability, the predictability, of such an institution as the Catholic Church . Are they entirely wrong and your ideas , new and radical, correct? Are you so sure that the changes that will come from the inevitable redefining of marriage (I believe the ship has sailed) will be for the good? I hope you are right .
.
I believe and hope this day , the day of this new pope , will bring the Church further from the recent disgusting abuses and closer to a new holiness if you will. I think this can only be a good thing and I rejoice in it.
And @federica, perhaps you should stop reading British news if they wallow so in Catholic bashing. It cannot be good for you. I like you fed.
.......But I Do Find This Whole Papacy Thing Very Interesting!...........................................
I haven't read a lot about it, as to timing, etc, but I have undergone a lot of critical study of the New Testament in my lifetime, especially in college. There were a lot of factions in the early church, and had St. James, the Lord's "Brother," survived the massacre by the Romans in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the primacy of Peter would arguably perhaps not have survived into the Christian New Testament canon. Who knows, perhaps there might have been some heriditary primogeniture in an alternate kind of papacy that might have survived for centuries? (Kind of like in Islam)
As it is, for some reason, Christian scripture provided for the Primacy of Peter, which allowed for the primacy of his successors. This is at least interesting, is it not?
Anyhow, I hope Pope Francis does a good job as leader of the people he is charged to lead. I hope he helps restore some faith in the church for them. I hope he has a good influence over them. He has a big job ahead of him. Apparently Pope John Paul (the second? Don't remember) was responsible for bringing many people who left the church, back. It seems they are hoping Pope Francis will do the same. That's just from various opinion pieces and such though.
Back in the very late 1960s, when I was still a Catholic, a friend of mine was getting married who was a Methodist. Catholics were supposed to get permission from a priest before going to a non-Catholic religious service. I thought it was perfunctory, but was actually told I couldn't go. I looked at the priest and said, "Tough shit. I'm going," and turned and walked away. And I know quite a few Catholics, and while they may not say things like that to a priest, they pretty much follow their own path within the church. They go to confession if they want to, and many don't at all. They don't go to most holy days of obligation. They don't believe in papal infallibility. Etc. In other words, they treat their Catholic faith pretty much the way most of us here treat our Buddhist faith.
Frankly, it sometimes seems as if non-Catholics are more concerned with Catholicism than many Catholics.
For what it's worth, in my experience, gay people aren't anymore promiscuous than straight people. In fact, most of the gay people I know are in committed, long-term relationships. And evidence suggests that gay parents are good parents. So I don't think you really have much to worry about. I think society can handle the legal union of loving, same-sex couples.
@jason
Yes, anecdotally I suspect you are right. I am talking about a conservative Catholic marriage. I am talking about the principal of marriage being forever and monogamous . From my experience with gay unions, there is a lot of wiggle room here. Since I believe that the principal of monogamy is stabilizing, I support the Church's efforts in this regard. I am not claiming they are holier than thou,or me,or a gay union , I am saying that a bisexual will demand their union be sanctioned and further unions of this type will be argued and eventually sanctioned and in the end it will not be good for society. I may be wrong and I suspect neither of us will live to find out.
I think the gay rights movement has taken the narrow view in demanding the redefinition of marriage.
To add to that, my mother is Catholic. She has been married 3 times. Her husband has been married twice. My husband's Catholic cousin has 4 children by 4 different mothers and hasn't married one of them. My best friend, who is gay, has been with his partner, monogamously for 16 years. Yes, it is anecdotal, but it is a reason you cannot base all of society and the decisions for how to run it on one religion. Equal rights means equal rights. Not separate but equal. Gay marriage isn't going to destroy the church's version of marriage. Not everyone shares the churches views, not even on monogamy, and they shouldn't have to follow the rules of a church they are not members of.
Whether or not someone can legally marry, have access to contraception and legal safe abortion is not something that should be decided by a religious group. A church has the right to decide not to marry a gay couple, but there is no reason why that same couple can't go to the courthouse and have their union legally recognized. They can advise their congregants about reproductive issues, but they shouldn't seek to make decisions for those outside of their congregations.
Edited to add: this is in refrence to US law
Now I am a fan of his.
I want to know if the new pope had to ask/get permission from some superior of his order to become Pope. I mean, as a member of a religious order, does he or does he not have to get permission for any change of job?
I thought a fellow Jesuit might shed some light on this.
I am looking forward to the reply. The things you read in the press are so amateurish, yet Wikipedia continues to astound me. Forget public television and radio, send your extra quarters to Wikipedia!
You'll note, however, that I was only discussing that we need to assure that all viewpoints have equal freedom of expression, even those viewpoints that we don't like.
Personally, I do not favor any tax exemptions for churches.
I don't mean to nitpick, since you really are brilliant, though human, but the language was misleading.
[Not for you, Jason, but for any third party:]
Some synonymns of "allegation," albeit not carrying the nuance of illegality or wrongful action are:
statement, claim, assertion, charge, and contention
That is the way I read it, namely, that the statement about his complicity in the two kidnappings is true.
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up!
We don't know what motivates the writer of an "exposé" book, how credible or trustworthy his sources might be, or even whether someone is deliberately trying to discredit someone. Therefore, I think Socrates' Triple Filter Test is a good barometer of goodwill towards our fellow citizens of the world. But if others want to make their mark by setting themselves up as judge and jury in some publication, we can't help that, I suppose. I guess we just have to trust that in the end it's just people doing what they see as their duty. But the thing is, the people that are "allegedly" being "exposed" in these books are probably doing their best to do their duty, weighing the good and the bad consequences of their actions and deciding as best they can the "right" thing to do.
In this case, we haven't heard Bergoglio's account of why he apparently failed to vouch for the two priests. Perhaps they were disobedient in some not insignificant matter? In which case his hands may have been tied, owing to the discipline of the Society of Jesus,
I want to know if the new pope had to ask/get permission from some superior of his order to become Pope. I mean, as a member of a religious order, does he or does he not have to get permission for any change of job?
e-mail response by my nephew's father:
Very good question.
I think that such protocol might be followed earlier in the career. When a religious order priest is appointed Bishop his line of authority is directly to the Pope and no longer to the Provincial.
Hey thanks for addressing my argument, you a re such a smart guy.
I cannot link(ineptness) but statistics are clear that religious , practicing Catholics ( and Protestants and to an incredible degree Orthodox Jews) have a much lower divorce rate than general population. These people pray at home, go to church, and follow the rules of the Church. I am not speaking of people who call themselves Catholic but abort, have irregular church attendance and do not pray at home.
I never said society would be destroyed only that the result of these new unions will not be known in our lifetimes. I am defending the Catholic Church here which is sort of odd for an ex. I am also asserting my preference for the status quo . This is a post on the new pope which I wish had not turned into a bashing session led by angry alternate lifestyle folks.
Thank you for addressing my point on plural unions , most do not , preferring to ignore what I believe is the key to my discomfort with the declaring gay rights a civil rights issue: in twenty years will they be where I am now and fight to keep marriage for two people only? And will plural union people trot out Martin Luther King? Why not?
As I desire the status quo, I applaud the Church for supporting it.
I want gays to have legal unions. I do not want plural unions recognized . But in fifty or sixty years the weight of this "injustice" will, I think be irrisistable. It is our kids and their kids who will have to sort it out.
Will the impact of what has begun here be positive or negative? I do not know.
I personally don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships. I don't think they destroy anyone either. Because people already have them. It makes the legal stuff a lot more difficult to deal with, but on a moral/social scale, I have no problem with it. I know people who have been in successful poly relationships for many, many years, and even have children. It works for them. Who am I to tell them they can't do it?
Supporting relationships and families as they grow together is a good thing, for all of us. They are already here, gay families, and they will continue to be here regardless of whether they have a certificate that tells them they are a legal couple. The only thing we do now is deny them benefits. Making it illegal does nothing to stop them from being gay or having families. Sometimes, things just need to change. Separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites was "status quo" rather recently. It was time for that to change. Few people today think it was the wrong decision to make. Gay marriage is the same deal.
Regardless of how you feel about plural marriages, why is it fair to deny it to gay couples because you don't want someone else to acquire marriage rights 50 years from now?
Your rewrite seems fair and balanced.
The 76-year-old pontiff went as far as to liken a church that lost its spiritual focus to a child's sandcastle.
"What would happen would be like when children make sandcastle," said Francis. "Then it all comes crashing down."
I hink it's good they have branched out from Italy.
the text of the Pope's first Homily, not the words he used to address the crowds in St. Peter's Square shortly after his election.
It alludes to Matt 7 which speaks of the wise man who builds his house upon the rock of Both hearing the teachings and doing them and the foolish man who only hears the words but doesn't follow them. He said:
Third, professing: we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ – I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy – “Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.
For "Jesus Christ," substitute "the Dhamma," to get the essence of the meaning.
Within the "group" a certain language is spoken, but it is meant to engage its members, and not the "whole world." (This takes on added complexity and confusion, though, when the context is that of "orbis et urbem," the globe and the city of the world -- you might call it an added layer of arrogance (etymologically from Latin arrogare, to claim, to claim exclusively) Taken outside that context, misunderstandings cannot help but arise.
It's unfortunate that religions rely on their symbols and divine personages to the extent that they often alienate other people of goodwill by making them feel excluded by not subscribing to these symbols and things in similar ways.
"But if we do not confess that we need a way out of our human predicament, nothing will avail" would be a more Buddhist interpretation of one line cited from above, in the place of confessing "Jesus Christ."
Perhaps instead of using the word dhamma as a substitute for Jesus Christ (to get the real essence of the intended impact in a more neutral religious setting).
I read 'this.' recently in The Guardian, which touches on the sorts of things that are taught by religion teachers in Catholic high schools. I know; my sister Roxanne is one of them:
"Think about a diamond with all its different facets. Those facets are the various religions. If you put that diamond up to the light – God – it shines through every facet differently, creating a variety of beautiful colors."
The Roman Catholic Church does have very strong ecumenical parties that are really so interested in other religions and in conversing and working with their adherents. I like to be a friend of the churches as far as I can, and I hope you all will forgive me.
BTW, if you finish the article from The Guardian, it appears that the woman thinks she'll have to be rebaptized to become an Episcopalian. Hope she's not counting on it, since it's against the rules due to her already having been baptized. Unlike the Baptists and sometimes with Catholics, as long as you've been baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, it's supposed to stick. Baptists insist on total immersion, which was not practicable in cold, drafty cathedrals... (not even to mention the subject of infant baptism...)
I have a few questions about your arguments against homosexual marriage. First off, you claim that allowing gays monogamous homosexual marriage will lead down the slippery slope into abusive and destabilizing forms of polygamy. Yet, what would prevent two men and women, or vice versa, from living in an openly polygamous relationship right now? To my knowledge, nothing would. Having sexual relations outside of marriage, even with more than one individual, is perfectly legal. Allowing monogamous relationships between two men or two women wouldn't give people any more ability to live a polygamous lifestyle than they have now. It would only give gays the same legal rights as straight married couples - acceptance in the eyes of the secular state.
Assuming then that Catholics are still bothered by the idea of "traditional marriage" being dirtied by changing this definition - they need not have any fear! Assuming gay marriage would be legalized, the Catholic church wouldn't actually be required to marry gays. They would be married in other churches, religious institutions, or in secular state institutions. So, Catholic "traditional marriage" still exists - but isn't forced on to anybody else. See how we all win?
Also: That is entirely silly.
If you assert that the gay lifestyle is not based on enjoying multiple partners , even in comitted, relationships, I can only say.... Yes it is. Now you say No it is not. I know ( and love)plenty of gay couples here in Los Angeles.
My argument is based on the belief that stable homes and families are better than unstable , and one man with one woman together in a marriage is the ideal. The Church supports this view so I support the Church and do not wish to see it mocked.
I am a status quo guy. Perhaps all will be well in the USA with these new alternative arrangements, perhaps not. I do know that if gays can marry then polygamy will return as another form of marriage. I do not want this.
Instead of facing uncertainty , I prefer supporting the status quo . I welcome to legal unions my homosexual friends, (except bi sexuals whom I will make choose one or the other: f*ck their civil rights) and encourage lawmakers to change all laws which discriminate.
That said, I'm astounded that anyone, much less in a Buddhist forum, will ever say "fuck their civil rights" and honestly right now I wish this page had a block function. I don't mind if people don't agree with me. But to claim someone doesn't deserve civil rights because they are different from you, is beyond my understanding. You realize civil rights go far beyond simply who marries who, right? Why would you deny another person basic civil rights?
You know gays can marry in other states and countries, right? And there hasn't been a push for polygamy in those areas since that time? NY has had gay marriage for 10 years now. Still no polygamy...
They used to say the same thing about giving slaves their freedom; and about allowing mixed race couples from marrying; and about giving Women the vote; and letting women in the workforce -above the traditional "service jobs" like teacher, waitress, maid, etc; and about allowing women in the military. And they used to say the same thing about repealing alcohol prohibition, and seeing a pregnant woman in public, or showing a married man and woman sleeping in one bed - not two, (on TV), and a lot of other things too... all nonsense!
Slippery slope arguments are the weakest arguments to be made, because they are only based on fear, not facts or stats.
Edited to add;
I don't even get what the big deal is with Polygamy or poly-amorous arrangements. How does that harm anyone else? What is the problem? If a man or woman wants to share their lives and commit to a solid relationship based on love and responsibility... who cares if it's with two women/men, or three or four? I don't. Doesn't affect MY life. Doesn't scare me in any way.
I don't believe the government should have any right nor reason to restrict or outlaw committed relationships between adult HUMAN BEINGS of any gender or number- for any reason at all.
Religious organizations- different story - they can restrict, refuse, revile whatever they like.... those whose marriage needs can't be met within those religious confines will go elsewhere, like others have said. There is no reason to force religious rules amongst those who are not involved in that religion.
However, I have a tough time seeing any concrete way in which gay civil unions or marriage are going to fundamentally change -- for the worse -- life in America. We heard that about interracial marriages, and I can't see a negative there at all. And, in my view, being able to be in a legal relationship will probably moderate the gay lifestyle over time.
Also, it's not so unusual for colonization to be viewed as intrusive and outdated- all over the world, and as @vinlyn said, majority doesn't always get to rule simply because of their numbers.
" I think it can be made to work. If the Duggar family can have 19 children and provide insurance for them all, then why can't a woman have 2 husbands and provide insurance for them, or vice versa? "
That is an excellent comparison. And completely reasonable and logical.