‘A Catholic case for same-sex marriage’

[Lochias]

Do you have any proof of this? How can homosexuality or homosexual marriage be unnatural - homosexuality is part of nature - that is irrefutable.

As others have said, and as you have admitted, eating one’s own young is also found in nature, and that is irrefutable. Why aren’t we all eating our own young and demanding the right to order children for dinner at fine restaurants everywhere?

How can you equate homosexuality rights with a ‘right to murder’ love to see that connection explained

Let’s line this up a bit. For this discussion, please assume that the existence of God as is understood by the Catholic religion is true. Debating the existence of God is a topic for another thread, which of course you are welcome to start.

1. God is real, and is just as the Catholic Church understands Him to be.
2. Any sin is a defiance of God and effectively a slap in His face, as per the understanding of Catholic doctrine and religion.
3. Therefore, homosexual acts and demanding the “right” to perform those acts, which are objectively sinful as the Catholic Church understands them, are a grave sin akin to murder. One harms the physical body, and one harms the soul, both of self and of others. In my opinion, rampant homosexual ACTS are more insidious, as they infect and decay the heart of the family structure as it was created and ordained by God…as evidenced by (among other things) the fact that we have male and female humans.

If you can find two males that can create a baby together by themselves, with no scientific or man-made help, your arguments may start to hold a little water.

Now, I have a question for you: Are you so eager to call us and prove us wrong as to continue to not capitalize the word “God” when talking about Him in a Christian context? You are effectively a guest in a Catholic’s home when you come to these boards, and show of respect for our faith and beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, would show just how un-bigoted and sincere you really are.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Inside a cleansed and open heart, into which it is inscribed, just as the ancient Jews knew Torah was inscribed on their hearts, and for which they regularly asked God for a cleansing of their hearts, to see His Law with clear vision and follow it with vigor.

When are hearts are polluted with secular confusion and a voracious attachment to worldly appetites and to the dominance of our Selves in contrast to Truth, Holy Natural Truth (natural law) is obscured from our faulty vision.

Sadly that wouldn’t be a flawless copy.
Council of Trent Session V:

1. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.

For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death,[18] who walk not according to the flesh,[19] but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God,[20] are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ;[21] so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven.

But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.[22]

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,[23] the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.

But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

This holy council declares, however, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, which deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.[24]

CCC:

THE NINTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is your neighbor’s.298

Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.299

2514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.300 In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods.

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. the apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."301 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.302

2516 Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between “spirit” and “flesh” develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it. It is part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle:

For the Apostle it is not a matter of despising and condemning the body which with the spiritual soul constitutes man’s nature and personal subjectivity. Rather, he is concerned with the morally good or bad works, or better, the permanent dispositions - virtues and vices - which are the fruit of submission (in the first case) or of resistance (in the second case) to the saving action of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Apostle writes: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."303

 

[Elizabeth502]

Morality and law are different, human sexuality is innate. I find it hard to believe that homosexuals like other persecuted groups have not been on a long journey to equality, including marriage equality

The point is very simple. If you’re a faithful Catholic citizen, you cannot allow the state powers that are not proper to the state, even if the state claims them. The state can claim anything it wants. It is the right and duty of citizens to correct the state when it steps over the line and assumes powers that are not proper to its function. One of those areas is revelation. No state has the authority to legislate contrary to revealed truth. Citizens who compartamentalize their thinking are in danger of commiting grave sin, they are in danger of falling into relativism.

Marriage is not being put through this grind, as I call it. Marriage was not created by the state. It was revealed by God. It is based on the covenant between God and Israel and fulfilled in the covenant between Christ and the Church. Since the state is not the origin of marriage is does not have the right to define it in any language contrary to revelation.

To give civl unions the attributes of marriage, because the secular world believes they should have it is not an authority that the state can claim for itself, even though it attempts to do so. Truth does not change. The state cannot rewrite truth.

To defend the power of the state to ignore truth is also contrary to the faith. We are first people of faith, then we are citizens. Our faith is to guide our civic activities, not the other way around. The creature does not legislate to the Creator. This is the message that all men and women of faith must transmit to our legislators. The authority of legislators and laws is governed by the Creator. Even the Founding Fathers understood this and spelled it out very clearly in the Declaratoin of Independence. They spoke of rights with which all men are endowed. They understood that rights were given to men by a higher power, not by man himself.

What we have here, in the case of civil unions, is a sudden departure from the fundamental belief that rights are endowed “by their Creator” and the state is trying to endow. Not only does this change in paradigm given to us through revelation, but it conflicts with the original philosophy upon which the nation was founded.

Without saying as much, we Catholics are allowing the American government to assimilate the same anti-clerical and anti-Catholic practices of the French Revolution. While the French Revolution did much to enhance the democratic rights of man, it also adopted an anti-Catholic philosophy. There is nothing in Catholicism contrary to the democratic rights of man, provided that democracy does not evolve into moral chaos. Man has a right to be free of oppression. He does not have the right to use his freedom to redefine what has been defined by revelation, such as marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sadly that wouldn’t be a flawless copy.

He asked for a copy, not a perfect copy. I told him where to find it. It’s the same place you can find it and I can find it. Not a privileged place or a perfect copy. Its perfection is reached through grace, as even the ancient Israelites understood, and for which they yearned.

 

[aprilfloyd]

aprilfloyd;10370808:

I

you said:

“Homosexuality as far as I can see does not impede procreation at all. Heterosexuals can procreate and so can homosexuals. Homosexuality has never stopped humans procreating and human evolution continuing and populations growing.”

I know I’m going to regret this but here goes. How can you say that homosexuals procreate? Homosexual sex can not produce a child.

If you read again what I said I never said homosexual sex can produce a child

 

[Cinette]

Iron Donkey

**I honestly have no idea why people keep trying to make homosexual activity ok according to Christianity. It’s not. **

The wish is father (or mother) to the lie.

St. Paul speaks in several epistles, as noted above, about sodomy. Since sodomy would be essential to a same-sex marriage if it is to be consummated, it is difficult to see how any real Catholic can defend both sodomy and same-sex marriage. Yet some do so in a grandstanding way. Perhaps they too are looking for their 15 minutes of fame (or infamy)?



Jude: 5-7
“I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

*I don’t think that the act of sodomy can consummate a marriage. If a man were to penetrate his wife’s rectum for instance I don’t think that would be consummation. Let alone the act of sodomy between two men!

I think that these people are trying to change the culture, re-define marriage, re-define human rights. They are intruding in territory that does not belong to them! How can anyone who is supposed to be holy and a role model (a nun) advocate such things.

These feminist nuns cannot claim to be representing the Catholic Church. They should remove themselves from the Church altogether.

 

[fix]

Morality and law are different, human sexuality is innate. I find it hard to believe that homosexuals like other persecuted groups have not been on a long journey to equality, including marriage equality

Why should unequal situations be treated equally?

 

[adrift]

Homosexuality as far as I can see does not impede procreation at all. Heterosexuals can procreate and so can homosexuals. Homosexuality has never stopped humans procreating and human evolution continuing and populations growing.

Before laws where enacted many homosexuals - lived in ‘traditional families’ and had children

If you read again what I said I never said homosexual sex can produce a child

Perhaps it is not what you meant but it is what you said. You might mean that homosexuals procreate by means of the opposite sex but it is not what you wrote. You know what you meant so you believe, I think, that it is obvious to others what you meant. To a person just reading what you say it seems that you are saying that homosexuals can procreate that is homosexuals can produce a child.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Perhaps it is not what you meant but it is what you said. You might mean that homosexuals procreate by means of the opposite sex but it is not what you wrote. You know what you meant so you believe, I think, that it is obvious to others what you meant. To a person just reading what you say it seems that you are saying that homosexuals can procreate that is homosexuals can produce a child.

I see how you may read it that way, to me it means a homosexual can father a child and homosexuality does not impede heterosexuality as the poster was suggesting

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please come home, Floyd.

 

[Lochias]

I see how you may read it that way, to me it means a homosexual can father a child and homosexuality does not impede heterosexuality as the poster was suggesting

It impedes heterosexuality by not making babies. Doesn’t get much simpler than that.

 

[TimothyH]

She is at it again.

“the faith as it is understood by the whole church.” Huh? Enough said.

***On Valentine’s Day, a priest and a nun **penned an op-ed in The Washington Post entitled, “A Catholic Case for Same-Sex Marriage.” *

That’s all anyone really needs to read.

-Tim-

 

[Charlemagne_II]

That’s all anyone really needs to read.

As I said earlier, some people will say anything to get a little attention! Even idiots in nun’s cloth and priest’s garb.

 

[aprilfloyd]

It impedes heterosexuality by not making babies. Doesn’t get much simpler than that.

You will need to give me more that.

How does it impede people having children?

 

[buffalo]

While we are speaking of rights, we are not allowing for the child’s rights. A child has a right to a biological mother and father.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Please come home, Floyd.

???

 

[New_World_Man]

Their is no case for same -sex marriage.

 

[aprilfloyd]

While we are speaking of rights, we are not allowing for the child’s rights. A child has a right to a biological mother and father.

As far as I know a child has a biological father and mother

 

[mab23]

Michael Voris does a nice Case on how the Gay Agenda movement has advanced and their arguments and the Catholic View point and why -

churchmilitant.tv/cia/13homosexuality/

 

[mab23]

So called same sex marriage is not equality it is forcing the Gay agenda on society and forcing a culture that interferes and will hurt **already recognized religious liberty
**

equality is benefits , disposition of property , and so on but they are not fighting for benefits the gay movement is fighting for more than acceptance they are fighting for approval of their lifestyle

redefining marriage will hurt religious liberty and change what marriage has been about which is in orientation to procreation

legal marriage is not about 2 people that love eachother - the government doesn’t care who you love nor is love in the definition of legal marriage now