A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[larkin31]

Right. Which makes it a sham law, since there is nothing in real life to which it relates.

No, I meant that THROUGH HISTORY IN AMERICA, the state has never made a physical act a requirement for granting legal married status.

 

[jmcrae]

It happens to me all the time. Keep it in perspective. There are a lot of frightened people in this world. To assuage their fears, they look for absolute certainty and get very angry when you say anything that might threaten what they have found comfort in. The raft of absolute truths and infallibility that we have approached in this discussion has taken on a good deal of water of late, so making waves can elicit some panic.

Who are you calling “frightened”?

I think it takes a lot less courage to tow the politically correct line, as you are doing, be an Oprah-follower, and be accepted in mainstream society as a “tolerant person,” than it does to stand up for what is right and good, as I and others in this thread are doing.

The easy thing is to just go along with whatever everybody wants, regardless of the harm, not express any opinion, and be “accepting of all” - because standing up for what’s right is scary! People might make fun of you! They might call you “narrow minded”! (Just as you are doing to me and to others in this thread!)

No - there may be some frightened people in this thread, but they are not the faithful Catholics who are standing up for the truth.

 

[Stephen168]

Right. Which makes it a sham law, since there is nothing in real life to which it relates.

This reminds me of my college math professor telling us that in the 1960’s the state of Texas considered changing pi to 3.14, so it would be easy for people to remember. When it become clear that pi cannot be legislated they backed away from the idea.

 

[jmcrae]

No, I meant that THROUGH HISTORY IN AMERICA, the state has never made a physical act a requirement for granting legal married status.

Right. I think it was always assumed that people were doing the marital act, though.

 

[jmcrae]

This reminds me of my college math professor telling us that in the 1960’s the state of Texas considered changing pi to 3.14, so it would be easy for people to remember. When it become clear that pi cannot be legislated they backed away from the idea.

LOL! I wish the proponents of gay “marriage” could also be made to see plain logic.

 

[larkin31]

…The easy thing is to just go along with whatever everybody wants, regardless of the harm,

Actually, as the judge pointed out, you can’t simply claim harm, you must demonstrate it, reveal it. The defendants could not, other than so-called injury to their sensibilities. This, in America, the judge rightly concluded, is not sufficient.

No one, in any page at CA, has ever demonstrated or revealed any measurable harm that gay marriage has or would likely bring to any other individuals.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, as the judge pointed out, you can’t simply claim harm, you must demonstrate it, reveal it. The defendants could not, other than so-called injury to their sensibilities. This, in America, the judge rightly concluded, is not sufficient.

No one, in any page at CA, has ever demonstrated or revealed any measurable harm that gay marriage has or would likely bring to any other individuals.

So, drug addiction, suicides, and other self-destructive behaviours are not considered “harm”?

 

[larkin31]

So, drug addiction, suicides, and other self-destructive behaviours are not considered “harm”?

Who demonstrates that gay marriage has increased them? I would like to read that study.

 

[jmcrae]

Who demonstrates that gay marriage has increased them? I would like to read that study.

Isn’t this whole situation based on the idea that, Oh, if only homosexuality were considered normal, then homosexuals wouldn’t commit suicide, become addicted to drugs, etc.?

 

[larkin31]

Isn’t this whole situation based on the idea that, Oh, if only homosexuality were considered normal, then homosexuals wouldn’t commit suicide, become addicted to drugs, etc.?

I don’t for a minute believe that you think that gay marriage rights are argued on this. Read the document. See if it says anything about suicide or drugs.

Secondly, this is another dodge from supporting your last suggestion (you tend to operate in innuendo), which was that gay marriage would be associated with greater drug use and suicide.

You have become a another (I have counted about 4 in the last three days) dishonest Catholic poster on this topic.

 

[larkin31]

Here is your remark when I asked for evidence of harm from expanding marriage to include gays:

So, drug addiction, suicides, and other self-destructive behaviours are not considered “harm”?

So don’t pull this dance and callous smear tactic **** with me.

 

[mflorence]

Who are you calling “frightened”?

I think it takes a lot less courage to tow the politically correct line, as you are doing, be an Oprah-follower, and be accepted in mainstream society as a “tolerant person,” than it does to stand up for what is right and good, as I and others in this thread are doing.

The easy thing is to just go along with whatever everybody wants, regardless of the harm, not express any opinion, and be “accepting of all” - because standing up for what’s right is scary! People might make fun of you! They might call you “narrow minded”! (Just as you are doing to me and to others in this thread!)

No - there may be some frightened people in this thread, but they are not the faithful Catholics who are standing up for the truth.

You missed everything I said. By the way, on this forum, it is not going along with what everyone says to support gay marriage. It is the opposite.

 

[larkin31]

You missed everything I said. By the way, on this forum, it is not going along with what everyone says to support gay marriage. It is the opposite.

haha

indeed

you’re tellin’ me!

 

[mflorence]

“Why do you say to me Lord, Lord and do not the things I tell you?”

And why do you quote some self-styled mystic named Sri Anandamayi Ma?

And what did Jesus say after forgiving the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery? “Go and sin no more.”

There is right and there is wrong. It is evident in natural law and divine revelation. I never knew a priest or nun who needed their self esteem elevated. We can control our human failings. However, the moment we begin to worship the god Change, we begin to close our ears to God and listen only to men.

And why do you judge and say “simple people”? What? If I live in the country and then move to the big city, my I.Q. will automatically go up?

There is no “enlightenment.” This is another word for Change as presented by the vain imaginations of men who are without foundation. Who are bored and seek amusement. Who want the constant overturning of the bedrock of human living so they can live out a fantasy.

The Bible is the Word of God. All of it is profitable for instruction.

God bless,
Ed

Don’t know why I would delve more deeply into a discussion with you, but I guess my morbid curiosity gets the better of me again. Okay, here goes:

“Why do you say to me Lord, Lord and do not the things I tell you?”

ANSWER: Insofar as I know, I am not failing to do what the Lord tells me.

And why do you quote some self-styled mystic named Sri Anandamayi Ma?

ANSWER: I belong to no religion, but I embrace them all. The woman you have spoken so unkindly of comes from a faith tradition that is thousands of years older than yours, includes all of the teachings of yours, and also offers much more in regard to the realization of the Christ within you in my opinion than does yours. Your lack of regard for the faiths of others makes it unlikely that what you profess to be your faith has taken root in any useful way. Anyway, I am full of remorse that I have desecrated the teachings of that woman by sharing them with you. Forget I mentioned her.

And what did Jesus say after forgiving the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery? “Go and sin no more.”

ASNWER: Was she a homosexual? Homosexual marriage is the topic.

There is right and there is wrong. It is evident in natural law and divine revelation. I never knew a priest or nun who needed their self esteem elevated. We can control our human failings. However, the moment we begin to worship the god Change, we begin to close our ears to God and listen only to men.

ANSWER: I am listening to God, and he expects me to use the common sense and intellect He gave me to understand what is right and what is wrong. I’m not sure how priests and nuns found their way into what I said. I’m sure you had a connection in mind, but I don’t think you expressed it.

And why do you judge and say “simple people”? What? If I live in the country and then move to the big city, my I.Q. will automatically go up?

ANSWER: You have not read what I said. I was expounding on the virtues of simple people as opposed to people who study the bible with a fine tooth comb and somehow miss the point. To me it seems that people who throw scripture around get lost in the sauce. Let me translate – I like simple people. Simplicity and love in my opinion are the path to God.

There is no “enlightenment.” This is another word for Change as presented by the vain imaginations of men who are without foundation. Who are bored and seek amusement. Who want the constant overturning of the bedrock of human living so they can live out a fantasy.

ANSWER: I don’t see any change in God. By the way, what is it about the idea of enlightenment that causes you to connect it with change? Enlightenment transcends time and change. Enlightenment would only require change if what you thought was wrong. So, if you are sure of what you’re thinking, then there is nothing to fear from enlightenment.

The Bible is the Word of God. All of it is profitable for instruction.

ANSWER: Let’s be honest with ourselves, okay? The Bible is the word of men, few of whom encountered God while he was here in the flesh. Even the gospels were written many years after the Apostles were dead, (70 to 90 CE) and they often contradict one another in their accounts of the life of Jesus. God wouldn’t have made those mistakes. Speaking of absolute truth, the absolute truth is that not only was the Bible written by men, it was written by men who unwisely chose the same subject without carefully reading what the other guys wrote. Is the general idea right? Yes, I think so. Is it all the infallible word of God, written by God? No, I don’t think so. .

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This is the first sane thing I’ve seen from your side of the argument in this thread.

jmcrae, you may come to believe your appraisal of my sanity a bit hasty.

While it’s true that I will not be looking for my priest to celebrate my partner’s and my marriage any time soon, as I don’t believe in gay marriage, I also do not believe that the state is in the sacrament confecting business. Marriage is a religious rite, the sacrament being confected by the couple and blessed by the church. The state does not and cannot confect the sacrament. The various rights and responsibilities that the state confers on married couples does not effect their marriage. The couple does that in the rite. In other words, the state provides certain rights and responsibilities as civil unions, a couple provides the marriage strictly speaking, a religious institution blesses and ratifies the marriage in a ritual context according to the rubrics, laws and customs of the institution (church, mosque, synagogue, temple, ashram, etc.)

Which is to say that I do not believe it inappropriate for the state to confer all or some of the rights and responsibilities it confers on married couples on other sorts of relationships it chooses or is compelled to recognize. The conference of these rights and responsibilities is purely a legal act, not a metaphysical or spiritual one.

Were it legal in New York for my partner and me to get married by going down to the courthouse, I think we would both recognize that “marriage,” in the civil context, is shorthand for our assumption, as a couple, of a certain set of rights and responsibilities conferred on us by the state and not marriage in the sacramental sense. (By the by, such a thing is not so novel–the affrerement accomplished the same thing, civically speaking, for what we would call today “non-traditional” couples, but it did so within a ritual context as well that was clearly not a marriage. Hence it’s appeal, to me at least.)

All of which is to say that, when I hear gay marriage discussed on the radio or in the media, I think of it in terms of the state recognizing my relationship, and I’m all for that, but I do not, for an instant, believe that actual marriage is being discussed. I’m sure lots of gay folks may find me a bit cold, insensitive, or traitorous (to what, I would wonder?) for saying that, and other types who believe civil and religious marriage are identical may not find it to *their *liking either. But again, for me, in the civil context, “marriage” is shorthand for a legal reality, not a sacramental one. Others may (and clearly do) feel differently.

Just felt I should write that.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[SteveVH]

No, I don’t believe they are the word of God. I believe they are the words of Paul. God talks to people, but not with words. Also, Paul made some mistakes in terms of what he wrote about the life of Jesus that don’t match the gospels and that would be problematic for the word of God. Paste what he said about the life of Jesus episode by episode against Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and you’ll find some glaring inconsistencies. Computers are amazing - they allow you to cut, paste, compare and cross reference. Too bad Paul didn’t have one. The Church can say that he is infallible and if they wish to believe that, it’s fine. Your faith is your faith and mine is mine. To me, the word of God comes in many forms - gospel and also via some things God gave me personally, like my intuition. I wouldn’t leave my kids with Paul. That’s what my intuition says. God and I get along fine without middle men. You can call me a heretic, laugh at me or wince in disbelief at my foolishness, but that doesn’t matter to God and me.If you stop leaning on dead zealots to form your view of God, and be still and listen, you’ll hear Him for yourself. My faith focuses heavily on being still and listening to God. Makes sense doesn’t it? That you would be able to have your own experiential knowledge of God? For instance, If Paul was the one who knew God in the only way He was meant to be known, then God might well have stopped the Human race right there with that lone beacon of truth?

Thanks for helping to guide me in my spiritual walk. I am always amazed at those who believe they are more enlightened than the Church God himself created. And how is it that you know that God does not speak to people in words. Did He tell you that? My faith also focuses heavily on being still and listening. Many times this occurs after I have read Scripture. It is called contemplation and meditation and has been taught by my Church for several thousand years now. No one has said that Paul knew God in the only way He was meant to be known. It seems you are the one placing limitations on God’s ability to communicate with us. God communicates with me through Sacred Scripture, the Sacraments, prayer, contemplation, meditation, nature, other people and I’m sure more ways than that if I wanted to think about it long enough. Of course, it is much easier to ignore scripture, especially when it conflicts with your own private beliefs. Much easier to say that God communicates with me privately. I can make it up as I go along and who can question me as to whether or not it came from God or from my own desires and imagination? None of those pesky rules to deal with.

Good luck with that.

Blessings.

 

[Stephen168]

Anyway, it’s human nature to try and elevate one’s self esteem by finding someone you see as lesser than yourself to denigrate People will always find someone to isolate and ridicule until they gain some level of enlightenment.

You are progressing nicely. A few more of these and we can start working on some compound sentences.

. There are a lot of frightened people in this world. To assuage their fears, they look for absolute certainty and get very angry when you say anything that might threaten what they have found comfort in. The raft of absolute truths and infallibility that we have approached in this discussion has taken on a good deal of water of late, so making waves can elicit some panic.

Your lack of regard for the faiths of others makes it unlikely that what you profess to be your faith has taken root in any useful way. Anyway, I am full of remorse that I have desecrated the teachings of that woman by sharing them with you.

It’s kind of a Freudian thing to project your own thoughts onto what you suppose others will think, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[mflorence]

Thanks for helping to guide me in my spiritual walk. I am always amazed at those who believe they are more enlightened than the Church God himself created. And how is it that you know that God does not speak to people in words. Did He tell you that? My faith also focuses heavily on being still and listening. Many time this occurs after I have read Scripture. It is called contemplation and meditation and has been taught by my Church for several thousand years now. No one has said that Paul knew God in the only way He was meant to be known. It seems you are the one placing limitations on God’s ability to communicate with us. God communicates with me through Sacred Scripture, the Sacraments, prayer, contemplation, meditation, nature, other people and I’m sure more ways than that if I wanted to think about it long enough. Of course, it is much easier to ignore scripture, especially when it conflicts with your own private beliefs. Much easier to say that God communicates with me privately, therefore justifying my way of life. None of those pesky rules to deal with.

Good luck with that.

Blessings.

I rest with what I said. Now that you have this out of your system, you can too. Your Church was created by God and no other Church is valid because your Church told you so. Your Church is infallible because your Church told you so. You sound very angry because I think otherwise, but you have not matched fact against anything I have said. I made certain assertions, very clear points on what I say is fact. You replied to no point in substance to my post, but rather angrily lashed out at me. Are you angry because you can’t? I am happy because I can.

 

[larkin31]

I rest with what I said. Now that you have this out of your system, you can too. Your Church was created by God and no other Church is valid because your Church told you so. Your Church is infallible because your Church told you so. You sound very angry because I think otherwise, but you have not matched fact against anything I have said. I made certain assertions, very clear points on what I say is fact. You replied to no point in substance to my post, but rather angrily lashed out at me. Are you angry because you can’t? I am happy because I can.

I’ve been going through that today, too.

 

[SteveVH]

I rest with what I said. Now that you have this out of your system, you can too. Your Church was created by God and no other Church is valid because your Church told you so. Your Church is infallible because your Church told you so. You sound very angry because I think otherwise, but you have not matched fact against anything I have said. I made certain assertions, very clear points on what I say is fact. You replied to no point in substance to my post, but rather angrily lashed out at me. Are you angry because you can’t? I am happy because I can.

I am not in the least bit angry. Exactly what points would you like me to address? You made a very clear point that you don’t believe the Bible is the word of God. How do you want me to react? Believe what you want to believe. Give me something of substance and I’ll be happy to address it.