‘A Catholic case for same-sex marriage’

[Kithrus]

You’ve managed to also say women that have jobs are just not fitting in with the ‘community blue print’ and that they should just conform. This is a good start…

I’m not arguing homosexuality can produce children, I’m arguing that it’s natural-You’re born with it because God made you that way/loves you that way. Therefore why are so many Christians homophobic/believe it is wrong.

Because it doesn’t contribute to the community. There also is no proof your born gay.

wow your attracted too good looking buff men yeah great congrats. In some cases I can even agree I see the allure but that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up my God given responsibility to fill my vocation. Homosexualality is nothing but a waste of our time, period, full stop. Its a life style that does nothing but be an act of insanity honestly.

Great you want to live with someone you trust. Good for you its called a roomate. You want to be single for the rest of your life and turn down what God wants/needs you to do then fine can’t stop you but your not helping the rest of us.

 

[aprilfloyd]

If by “accepted by them” you mean have homosexual acts seen as an ok thing (which you really shouldn’t, but many people do), then it’s not difficult but impossible for faithful Catholics to ever do so.

I still hold out hope.

And armless people came out of the same evolutionary processes as people with arms. Doesn’t mean that missing your arms is a good thing.

Not sure what you mean here

Some = All, if you mean the position that having the attraction is not sinful but fostering or acting on it is.

If I am mentally damaged, and think that beating someone to within an inch of their life expresses love, that’d still be wrong. That people think an action is loving is not enough to base an argument on.

I don’t think for a minute that you think that is an argument, you know that I am talking about homosexuals expressing love for each other and not violence

As for the evolution thing, well perhaps, if you go by the adage that everything that exists is a result of evolution, but this would mean that susceptibility to cancer and disease and the genetic disorders that cause you to be born with no limbs are good too. Which is ridiculous.

Evolution is not an ‘adage’ and I can’t see what evolution can bring to your sentence on wether having in limbs or not is ‘good’ - I think you are just being silly for the sake of it.

1. You don’t understand the logic because you persist in saying that anything that happens must be good.

That does not make sense

1. The “it has been written” is a legitimate argument among Catholics who accept the ability of the Church to arrive at answers, and in a slightly different way among Christians in general who accept scripture. It is not meant to convince non-Christians, and there are other arguments.

I was raised as a catholic so know this, but the rest of the world has a higher standard for proof

1. No where once in any of the posts that I have read have any of us condemned a single homosexual. Rather, we have condemned some actions that some people really want to do. I can tell you right now that as a normal heterosexual male, many actions I have drives to do are condemned as well, and yet for some reason no one thinks the Church is condemning me.

My opinion is that they are being condemned because of the perception that their acts I assume you mean sex - are condemned by the Catholic Church

 

[Lochias]

I still hold out hope.

That the Church will embrace sinful acts? Hope you packed a sandwich or twelve, 'cause you’re gonna be waiting for a long time, indeed.

I don’t think for a minute that you think that is an argument, you know that I am talking about homosexuals expressing love for each other and not violence

We consider it to be spiritual violence. The two are equal, in intent if not in matter.

Evolution is not an ‘adage’ and I can’t see what evolution can bring to your sentence on wether having in limbs or not is ‘good’ - I think you are just being silly for the sake of it.

Name-calling is one of the last resorts of those who have no real argument to make. The fact that you can’t (or won’t) see what we’re trying to get across doesn’t mean other people don’t.

That does not make sense

You say that a lot.

I was raised as a catholic so know this, but the rest of the world has a higher standard for proof

Science does not equal proof, and the world’s standards are not those of the Church, which are rooted in an objective Truth that benefits all who choose to embrace it. The world has no real standards, because the world operates on relativism, which is to say that the world’s standards constantly change depending on what feels good currently. I prefer to live my life free of such weak, flimsy guidelines.

My opinion is that they are being condemned because of the perception that their acts I assume you mean sex - are condemned by the Catholic Church

How does that not make what you say bigoted? “I think the Church condemns homosexuals because the Church condemns homosexual acts.” You might as well say, “I think the Church condemns cars because people have killed other people with cars before.”

Wake up. It’s time to actually listen to what we’re saying. Wake up.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I still hold out hope.

Indeed, you will need many sandwhiches. To add to what Lochias said, I really only have one point. Well one and a half. Maybe three quarters.

I don’t think for a minute that you think that is an argument, you know that I am talking about homosexuals expressing love for each other and not violence

Let’s examine this more closely:

I say action A is wrong. I give various reasons.

You say no, action A cannot be wrong because the people involved think it is an act of love.

I say, well suppose I think violent act B is an act of love, is it then ok?

You say no, because it is violent and hence obviously wrong.

What we just did is show that whether or not the person doing the act thinks it’s an act of love does not affect the inherent morality of the act. (It may have some effect on the guilt ascribed to the person, but not on the objective morality of the act itself, which is what we are discussing.)

So, the argument that “they do it out of love, so it’s ok” fails, because there are other things that people can do out of love that are not ok. (That was point 1.)

Evolution is not an ‘adage’ and I can’t see what evolution can bring to your sentence on wether having in limbs or not is ‘good’ - I think you are just being silly for the sake of it.

Not silly, so much as absurd. But not for the sake of it (though the thought is beginning to appeal, this is feeling like climbing the cliffs of insanity), bur rather to make a point. A reductio ad version of the absurdum, if you will. You said, so far as I can tell, that homosexuality is the result of evolution, and that this somehow makes it “natural” and good. (It was the idea that everything is the “purposeful” result of evolution, and that that means anything, that I was calling an adage by the way, not evolution itself. I am pretty much completely uninterested in evolution.)

I said that genetic disorders like having no limbs also exist, and have not been eradicated by evolution, so if all things that have not been eradicated by evolution are to be called results of it, and this is somehow supposed to make them seem natural or good, then having no arms and legs must also be natural and good.

Ergo, either simply existing in humanity does not make a thing a result of evolution, or results of evolution are not all good. Pick one, frankly I don’t care. But either way, the argument that because it exists it must be ok falls on its face.

That was the half point.

That does not make sense

No this does not make sense:


What I’m saying is perfectly legit. I use the picture as argument.

I was raised as a catholic so know this, but the rest of the world has a higher standard for proof

Not higher. What you require is built in to the “it is written”. Just different. Think of it as an abbreviation. (That was the quarter point.)

My opinion is that they are being condemned because of the perception that their acts I assume you mean sex - are condemned by the Catholic Church

Ok, a lied. I have another quarter point. Or then again, maybe I can still claim honesty since it’s just a repeat of a previous point.

As a normal heterosexual male, I have drives the Church says I should not act on either. Does that mean that the Church condemns me?

 

[aprilfloyd]

That the Church will embrace sinful acts? Hope you packed a sandwich or twelve, 'cause you’re gonna be waiting for a long time, indeed.

‘sinful acts’ are what the church calls them, but that does not make the wrong.

I can see it will be a long time coming, but I believe in my fellow man, and future generations will be less judgemental

We consider it to be spiritual violence. The two are equal, in intent if not in matter.

That seems a very strange thing to say. But as you say I cannot change your mind

Name-calling is one of the last resorts of those who have no real argument to make. The fact that you can’t (or won’t) see what we’re trying to get across doesn’t mean other people don’t.

I apologise if you think I was calling names - I genuinely thought you were being silly for effect and to be humourous

Science does not equal proof, and the world’s standards are not those of the Church, which are rooted in an objective Truth that benefits all who choose to embrace it. The world has no real standards, because the world operates on relativism, which is to say that the world’s standards constantly change depending on what feels good currently. I prefer to live my life free of such weak, flimsy guidelines.

Science is the search for answers and does not pontificate. If something turns out to be wrong one of the strengths of science is it can acknowledge that and move on. Religion does not does not search for answers or proof - but just makes unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims.

Your last sentence is funny.

How does that not make what you say bigoted? “I think the Church condemns homosexuals because the Church condemns homosexual acts.” You might as well say, “I think the Church condemns cars because people have killed other people with cars before.”

Wake up. It’s time to actually listen to what we’re saying. Wake up.

I am trying to listen to what you are saying, but your view just seems bigoted towards homosexuals

 

[edwest2]

Why do homosexual persons need Catholic approval? Or to call us names? It makes no sense.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

Why do homosexual persons need Catholic approval? Or to call us names? It makes no sense.

Peace,
Ed

They want validation. They know they are wrong and do not want any reminders.

 

[buffalo]

‘sinful acts’ are what the church calls them, but that does not make the wrong.

I can see it will be a long time coming, but I believe in my fellow man, and future generations will be less judgemental

That seems a very strange thing to say. But as you say I cannot change your mind

I apologise if you think I was calling names - I genuinely thought you were being silly for effect and to be humourous

Science is the search for answers and does not pontificate. If something turns out to be wrong one of the strengths of science is it can acknowledge that and move on. Religion does not does not search for answers or proof - but just makes unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims.

Your last sentence is funny.

I am trying to listen to what you are saying, but your view just seems bigoted towards homosexuals

Judgmental? You do understand the difference between judging actions and judging someone’s salvation?

 

[AlienAngel]

**I’m a convert to Catholicism. Homosexuality is wrong. If you disagree, then you can’t be Catholic. No more Martin Luthers. If you don’t believe what the Church teaches, then you’re not Catholic. You’re something else. **

After following this thread, it seems to me that if the posters are a good sample of Catholics then it is still going to be difficult for homosexuals to be accepted by them.

Some comments have stated that it is a sin in the eyes of the Church, but that does not make it wrong in the wider world, nor intrinsically or morally wrong.

Some posters have indicated that same sex marriage goes against marriage, because that goes against the idea that marriage is for the procreation of children. I don’t see how that can be the case, as homosexuals evolved the same way that heterosexuals did and their desire to form relationships is just the same.

I think marriage is more than just to create children and should be open to everyone, irrespective of the ability to have children and that includes homosexuals and heterosexuals, who can’t have children.

Some have said that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, but something wrong with their acts, again I can’t see how a physical expression of love between two people can be wrong. It is a process of evolution.

Despite reading all the posts I still can’t see any logic or rationale behind the Church’s position, other than it ‘has been written down’ so it must be right. I any other walk of life to condemn someone like that would be seen as prejudicial if not bigoted.

It’s very sad (and I know people say don’t argue from emotion) but that is how I feel.

 

[aprilfloyd]

**I’m a convert to Catholicism. Homosexuality is wrong. If you disagree, then you can’t be Catholic. No more Martin Luthers. If you don’t believe what the Church teaches, then you’re not Catholic. You’re something else. **

Of course, I disagree, Homosexuality is not wrong. Blind Catholicism is also wrong. If you see an injustice or a prejudicial teaching. You need to stand up and be counted. Otherwise you are siding with a bully.

All I can say is that I was raised a catholic, but can’t see why it should be bigoted to other normal people. If that means, in the eyes of others, I am not a catholic then so be it.

 

[buffalo]

Of course, I disagree, Homosexuality is not wrong. Blind Catholicism is also wrong. If you see an injustice or a prejudicial teaching. You need to stand up and be counted. Otherwise you are siding with a bully.

All I can say is that I was raised a catholic, but can’t see why it should be bigoted to other normal people. If that means, in the eyes of others, I am not a catholic then so be it.

Something is not wrong because you say so. SSA is a condition, homosexual acts are wrong.

Believe me, many here are not “blind” Catholics but some are and entrusting God’s church is nothing to be ashamed of.

The Church has always understood and taught homosexual acts are wrong. It is also common sense. It doesn’t/cannot fulfill the purposeful design of male and female.

 

[OxygenMan]

Science is the search for answers and does not pontificate. If something turns out to be wrong one of the strengths of science is it can acknowledge that and move on. Religion does not does not search for answers or proof - but just makes unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims.

Religion certainly does search for answers and proof. Science does not pontificate, you are correct. Science, by itself, says nothing of morality, one way or another. If science is your only gauge on whether something is right or wrong, you can’t say either.

You can’t say condemning homosexual acts is wrong, nor can you say allowing homosexual marriage is right. Because science explains how things work. It does not generate morality or decide whether an action is good or evil.

 

[Mark121359]

Out of curiosity, what is there that makes you think that in these last (roughly) 10 years people suddenly discovered that the word of God said exactly the opposite of what everyone had hitherto believed it to say? That when Paul said that men who lie with other men shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, that this really meant that they only shall not inherit the kingdom unless they really, really wanted to lie together?

Is God that bad an Author that the very Church He founded could misunderstand what He personally told them while incarnate, and also revealed through scriptures? Do you think it likely that that such a radical reversal in opinion since forever would just now be discovered?

Or perhaps is it more likely that you’re projecting the desires of the age on to what you read?

Bingo!

 

[aprilfloyd]

Religion certainly does search for answers and proof. Science does not pontificate, you are correct. Science, by itself, says nothing of morality, one way or another. If science is your only gauge on whether something is right or wrong, you can’t say either.

You can’t say condemning homosexual acts is wrong, nor can you say allowing homosexual marriage is right. Because science explains how things work. It does not generate morality or decide whether an action is good or evil.

Religion searches for answers and proof? When was the last time that the catholic church admit it got something wrong in its teachings and changed them.

How do you reach the conclusion that science says nothing of morality?

I think it’s time for the catholic church stop condemning homosexual love and let homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else.

Where do you think morality comes from? I don’t see how it can come from a man made god over all the 1,000s of other man made gods

 

[buffalo]

Religion searches for answers and proof? When was the last time that the catholic church admit it got something wrong in its teachings and changed them.

How do you reach the conclusion that science says nothing of morality?

I think it’s time for the catholic church stop condemning homosexual love and let homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else.

Where do you think morality comes from? I don’t see how it can come from a man made god over all the 1,000s of other man made gods

Where do rights come from?

 

[AlienAngel]

Being born into a Catholic family doesn’t mean you’re Catholic. It’s not like once you’re in, you’re in for life. God gives us Free Will. So, no. I guess I’m the first to tell you. You are not a Catholic. You don’t believe what Catholics believe, therefore; not a Catholic. We don’t change God or the Church to our personal beliefs, it’s the other way around. If there is something that you find wrong with the Church’s moral teaching, you are the one that must change. Otherwise, … not Catholic

Of course, I disagree, Homosexuality is not wrong. Blind Catholicism is also wrong. If you see an injustice or a prejudicial teaching. You need to stand up and be counted. Otherwise you are siding with a bully.

All I can say is that I was raised a catholic, but can’t see why it should be bigoted to other normal people. If that means, in the eyes of others, I am not a catholic then so be it.

 

[OxygenMan]

Religion searches for answers and proof? When was the last time that it got something wrong in its teachings and changed them.

How do you reach the conclusion that science says nothing of morality?

I think it’s time for the catholic church stop condemning homosexual love and let homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else.

Where do you think morality comes from? I don’t see how it can come from a man made god over all the 1,000s of other man made gods

If you do not believe that God exists, then you must ask yourself if there is an objective basis for morality.
If the universe is a random creation of happenstance, there is no objective, universal source of morality.
Therefore, if you deny God, you can’t say that things are good or evil. You can only say that things happen. If you look at the very definition of science, it is a method of examining the material world and determining how the material world works. It can’t generate an objective morality.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Where do rights come from?

Buffalo, we are just going round and round here - what type of rights are you talking about?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, we are just going round and round here - what type of rights are you talking about?

rights human claim.

 

[aprilfloyd]

If you do not believe that God exists, then you must ask yourself if there is an objective basis for morality.

Why? Do you think we get morality from god? Surely not.

If the universe is a random creation of happenstance, there is no objective, universal source of morality.

How do you draw that conclusion? I think you are confusing religion with morality.

Therefore, if you deny God, you can’t say that things are good or evil. You can only say that things happen. If you look at the very definition of science, it is a method of examining the material world and determining how the material world works. It can’t generate an objective morality.

How do you draw that conclusion? Why can’t science look at why and how humans have established what we call morality?