A Popular Injustice against the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter servus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

servus

Guest
I am tired of Catholics and other Christians being called bigots and racists because they don’t support gay-rights. I am also tired of hearing sermons by Catholic priests that are pro-gay. I am writing this thread to show that to be against gay rights is not bigotry, and that pro-gay religious ministers are not on the side of sacred scripture, but are placing themselves and culturally popular opinions before their priestly vows.
  1. To be against gay rights is not bigotry. The charge that those who don’t support gay rights are bigots rests entirely on the social identity of self-proclaimed homosexuals. It rests on the idea that LGBT persons are a legitimate race and social class made so by God, nature, or whatever creative power one acknowledges. The idea that people are born gay, lesbian, or transgendered is preposterous. It amounts to enabling a sexual addiction, and denies that the human mind is capable of free thought and self-adjustment. This is why so many pro-gay movements focus on religious and social acceptance of the homosexual condition, rather than the biological component. Often to support their view that to be homosexual is not a choice, pro-gay folks will cite the 1974 American Psychological Associations removal of homosexuality from its list of disorders (HSM IV). But, this was done without empirical evidence, as one can go tot he “sexuality” section of the APA website and see that it acknowledges that “no findings have emerged which permit scientists to claim that sexual orientation is the result of any factor…”. The APA and similar groups continue to approve of homosexuality not because it is right or because empirical evidence has led them to do so, but because it has hired activists to probe the matter and conduct its “LGBT” affairs.
  2. Religious clergy who are pro-gay are such not because it is the scriptural, christian, or right thing to do within the faith tradition, but because they make concessions to popular culture and put themselves first. All the so-called LGBT friendly readings of the Bible are admittedly false interpretations. To interpret the Sodom and Gomorrah story as a simple case of inhospitably is to assume that the visitors to Lot would gladly have had relations with the men of Sodom if they asked nicely. Leviticus 18:22 and similar passages are clear enough, so pro-gay religious ministers usually find some philosophical objection to applying them to the Church today. The bottom line is that the Bible is against homosexuality. Those who say that it isn’t should be asked, “if the Bible was against homosexuality would it change your position on the issue?”. It will become clear that they have no intention to obey Scripture, only themselves.
Sometimes people point to the teachings of Jesus and claim that Jesus’ inclusiveness is enough. They abstract Christianity into some impersonal principle of arbitrary acceptance. Christianity has laws, teachings, persons, historical characters and it makes demands of the individual that are dangerous and life changing. Christianity does not make concessions to the feelings or whims of individuals. As H Richard Niebuhr said, “Christ does not accept us the way we are, he calls us to repentance”.
 
I am Catholic
I support the right of same sex couples to have a civil marriage
I can not justify another position
I certainly do not support the church accepting these marriages as valid
However, I do not think the church should accept many marriages as valid (infidelity, divorce, etc).
 
As far as human rights are concerned I think everyone should be entitled to those.

As far as laws concerning marriage? Well if the law original states something along the lines of “union between a man and a woman” then I think that should be available to everyone.

As for gay marriage? No way. I will not support laws that go against morality and the teachings of the church. For myself, by supporting such a law for civil unions only is saying that it’s okay for those who don’t believe, as long as it doesn’t infringe on my beliefs. That is not professing the gospel.
 
praise_Jesus said:
I will not support laws that go against morality and the teachings of the church. For myself, by supporting such a law for civil unions only is saying that it’s okay for those who don’t believe, as long as it doesn’t infringe on my beliefs. That is not professing the gospel.
Click to expand...
What about Divorce?
What about infidelity?

Should they be legal for civil marriage?

Of course they should
As should civil gay marriage
 
Civil unions for consenting adult partnerships to provide legal benefits.

Sacred Marriage for those who choose it with no government interference or involvement.

That leaves marriage as a sacrament and allows those who choose not to involve themselves with religion to have legal rights.
 
First of all we all have to realize the difference between marriage as a “civil union” and Holy Matrimony as a sacrament.

Going to a judge is reconigzed by human law to be marriage or civil union and entitles you the benefits that a civil union entails.

According to human law The sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the exact same as a civil union. However, to the Catholic Church it is much more. It’s more than a tax credit, or having the same last name. It’s about the fundamental relationship between a man and a woman. Two people joining their lives together. Two people that God designed anatomically and spiritually to be compatible with each other.

This belief is what is referred to as the “institution of marriage”.

Allowing homosexual couples to join in an act that is called marriage by human law damages the institution of marriage. As a Catholic my faith teaches me marriage is between a man and a woman. If society forces me to consider that a marriage is anything besides that, that’s infringing on my religious beliefs that are protected under the constitution of the united states.

Lastly, as a man living a sacramental marriage. I find it grossly offensive that a homosexual couple be given the same legal benefits as me. I don’t feel what they are doing is right and I feel that giving them legal benefits is legitimizing their actions, which I can’t support.
 
06convert said:
First of all we all have to realize the difference between marriage as a “civil union” and Holy Matrimony as a sacrament.

Going to a judge is reconigzed by human law to be marriage or civil union and entitles you the benefits that a civil union entails.

According to human law The sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the exact same as a civil union. However, to the Catholic Church it is much more. It’s more than a tax credit, or having the same last name. It’s about the fundamental relationship between a man and a woman. Two people joining their lives together. Two people that God designed anatomically and spiritually to be compatible with each other.

This belief is what is referred to as the “institution of marriage”.

Allowing homosexual couples to join in an act that is called marriage by human law damages the institution of marriage. As a Catholic my faith teaches me marriage is between a man and a woman. If society forces me to consider that a marriage is anything besides that, that’s infringing on my religious beliefs that are protected under the constitution of the united states.

Lastly, as a man living a sacramental marriage. I find it grossly offensive that a homosexual couple be given the same legal benefits as me. I don’t feel what they are doing is right and I feel that giving them legal benefits is legitimizing their actions, which I can’t support.
Click to expand...
I agree with and appreciate much of your sentiment. However, and I think this is very important, the same holds true allowing divorces. Allowing married couples to divorce for “irreconcilable differences” damages the institution of marriage. Infidelity does the same. I think that we, as Catholics, have to accept this as truth.

As a man living in a sacramental marriage I appreciate the offense taken. However, the offense is even greater when applied to heterosexual couples that divorce.

I think that at the beginning of your post you had it right. “According to human law The sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the exact same as a civil union.” Accordingly, there is no reason not to extend this to homosexual couples.

Civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic marriage. We can not pretend that it does.
 
jjdrury81 said:
I agree with and appreciate much of your sentiment. However, and I think this is very important, the same holds true allowing divorces. Allowing married couples to divorce for “irreconcilable differences” damages the institution of marriage. Infidelity does the same. I think that we, as Catholics, have to accept this as truth.

As a man living in a sacramental marriage I appreciate the offense taken. However, the offense is even greater when applied to heterosexual couples that divorce.

I think that at the beginning of your post you had it right. “According to human law The sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the exact same as a civil union.” Accordingly, there is no reason not to extend this to homosexual couples.

Civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic marriage. We can not pretend that it does.
Click to expand...
Thank you!! Finally someone gets it.
 
06convert has a good point. I think supporting such legislation would create scandal to others.

I admit we live in a democratic society and cannot force others to accept our viewpoints. But since it is a democracy we do have the freedom to either vote directly on such issues, or vote for individuals who will support our values.
 
Keep up the good fight servus, somebody has to. The LGBT movement is nothing but political. I worked for a mental health clinic for a time, and I was astonished at the number of “mental health professionals” there that were gay/lesbian. You’re right, there was no scientific reason for removing homosexuality from the DSM. As with other ideologies, they gain support by infiltrating schools and government, from which they can change the culture from within.

It’s “Pride” week here in Toronto pridetoronto.com/ and an expected 1,000,000 people are expected to attend. There are always flagrant violations of public nudity laws during the parades, but no one has ever been convicted of a crime. The mayor and other dignitaries will attend the opening ceremonies, but I would wager that they would never allow** their children** to watch these obscene spectacles.

The only people that will be targeted during this event are those that refuse to do homage to the LGBT political movement. Here’s a quick list of people and organizations convicted of “hate crimes” here in Canada, because they dared speak out.

wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

I should add that Canada has been held up as a model for those advocating for gay and lesbian Boy Scout and Girl Guide troops. bsa-discrimination.org/html/scoutscanada-gay.html

Am I the only one who sees a problem with gay Boy Scout leaders in position of authority over young children?
 
I think you missed the point of the article and my post mkingdomlvr, unless you were being sarcastic…

When things are legal under civil law, but not allowed by the Church, most times, we as good Catholics simply need to abstain from the civil freedom. So in many cases, you are correct.

The reason I posted the article was to show that we can’t ignore the idea that these “civil liberties” are forcing Catholic orgainizations to give up good ministries and the right to follow Catholic law.

What happens when a priest or a minister in another church preaches about the wrongs of homosexuality, and an unstable parishoner takes a gun to a gay nightclub. Is that the fault of the preacher? Respected legal minds are saying the courts will hold them accountable if many of the hate crime laws are passed. Just another case where the line is being blurred and the rendering unto God, must come before rendering unto Ceasar. Don’t you agree?
 
gt8952b said:
I think you missed the point of the article and my post mkingdomlvr, unless you were being sarcastic…

When things are legal under civil law, but not allowed by the Church, most times, we as good Catholics simply need to abstain from the civil freedom. So in many cases, you are correct.

The reason I posted the article was to show that we can’t ignore the idea that these “civil liberties” are forcing Catholic orgainizations to give up good ministries and the right to follow Catholic law.

What happens when a priest or a minister in another church preaches about the wrongs of homosexuality, and an unstable parishoner takes a gun to a gay nightclub. Is that the fault of the preacher? Respected legal minds are saying the courts will hold them accountable if many of the hate crime laws are passed. Just another case where the line is being blurred and the rendering unto God, must come before rendering unto Ceasar. Don’t you agree?
Click to expand...
If a Catholic organization is accepting federal funding, then like it or not they must play by federal rules. If they don’t want to do that, then they have to give up the benefits they receive from the federal government-in most cases that would be the tax exemption status.

If the preacher spent every sunday talking about how gay people should be sent to Hell, and then unstable nutjob shoots up a gay bar, I say that the unstable nutjob is the only one that should be charged with a hate crime. However, I would hope that said preacher would consider his words more carefully in the future. As much as I would love to see Fred Phelps in an orange jumpsuit, if one of his followers shoots a gay person, Fred doesn’t get charged with the same crime. He should lose his tax exempt status though.

We actually covered this issue in my Constitutional law class this year, and that was the consensus opinion. Free speech is not limitless, but transferred intent doesn’t go far enough to charge a clergy member for simply preaching what the Bible says.
 
Hopefully I’m comming across as offensive, but I think you’re making my point for me. Organizations like Catholic Charities that have been doing good work for a long time, suddenly the law changes and the separation of church and state status-quo goes away, so that a well respected religious organization needs to give up their tax status, and any other government benefit, obvious or not, in order to keep their religious freedoms and obey their own moral charter.

Do you mind if I ask where you’re attening school? I find it interesting that your class came to that concensus. Obviously, the respected legal minds I was referencing could easily have a different opinion on this issue since there are multiple interpretations of the law and there’s plenty of bias depending on who’s discussing it.

My concern is that the more we convince ourselves that the government can do whatever it wants and the church can continue to exist the way it has, the more we’ll be caught off guard if suddenly that’s not true. Maybe it’s pessimistic, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
 
correction to last post, hopefully I’m not comming across as offensive. 🙂
 
My question for those in favor of the civil union between same-sex couples is:

If it was put to a referendum or vote whether or not same-sex couples could be civilly married would you vote in favor? If you do vote in favor would this cause scandal or show your support for their behavior?

It seems that the support for the civil union comes directly from wanting these people to be entitled to benefits (Correct me if I’m wrong). Now these benefits are those currently enjoyed by married people. If these benefits were expanded to a same-sex civil union would you also support expanding them even further to people who are room mates or friends who have the same place of residence? or possibly to an elderly person who is being cared for by a family member?

My intention isn’t to provoke any argument I’d just like to understand better where you’re coming from.
 
gt8952b said:
Hopefully I’m comming across as offensive, but I think you’re making my point for me. Organizations like Catholic Charities that have been doing good work for a long time, suddenly the law changes and the separation of church and state status-quo goes away, so that a well respected religious organization needs to give up their tax status, and any other government benefit, obvious or not, in order to keep their religious freedoms and obey their own moral charter.

Do you mind if I ask where you’re attening school? I find it interesting that your class came to that concensus. Obviously, the respected legal minds I was referencing could easily have a different opinion on this issue since there are multiple interpretations of the law and there’s plenty of bias depending on who’s discussing it.

My concern is that the more we convince ourselves that the government can do whatever it wants and the church can continue to exist the way it has, the more we’ll be caught off guard if suddenly that’s not true. Maybe it’s pessimistic, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
Click to expand...
That’s the choice that people make every day, whether God comes first or not. It’s a cross we all have to bear, at least that what I keep getting told. If the Church wants to keep providing services, they have to obey the law. If they don’t want to obey the law, then they have to take the consequences that go with that too.

We live in a country that places a great value on the right to worship-but when the exercise of that right begins to infringe on the rights of others, there’s a problem. If that means that churches get out of the adoption business and confine themselves to the worship business, perhaps that’s the most fair thing for all concerned.
 
So once again, I agree with you, but it sounds like your confirming my original point, that civil matters and religous matters can’t be isolated (at least in some isolated cases).

If the government can pass a law that says it’s illegal to do something that’s set forth in the charter of a religous organization, then the civil is not isolated from the religous, since the civil pushes back the church-state border. As you said, if the religous infringes upon the rights of the civil, then the religous is not isolated from the civil.

I personally want to see civil rights and equal rights granted to everyone, and I have no idea where to draw the line. I just think we’re being foolish if we don’t try to protect the church while trying to protect the homosexuals, or anyone else.
 
praise_Jesus said:
My question for those in favor of the civil union between same-sex couples is:

If it was put to a referendum or vote whether or not same-sex couples could be civilly married would you vote in favor? If you do vote in favor would this cause scandal or show your support for their behavior?

It seems that the support for the civil union comes directly from wanting these people to be entitled to benefits (Correct me if I’m wrong). Now these benefits are those currently enjoyed by married people. If these benefits were expanded to a same-sex civil union would you also support expanding them even further to people who are room mates or friends who have the same place of residence? or possibly to an elderly person who is being cared for by a family member?

My intention isn’t to provoke any argument I’d just like to understand better where you’re coming from.
Click to expand...
How would anyone know whether I voted in favor or not? Aren’t our votes our own business in this country? I would likely not say anything about my vote because I would be concerned that someone would know I was raised Catholic and be misled. But since you asked so nicely-I will tell you what I would do.

I would vote yes, because I don’t believe that religious rules should govern civil laws regarding marriage between consenting adults.

As far as expanding those benefits, I’d have to read the proposed law regarding expansion first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top