Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Would you be able to judge whether or not two individuals are able to have marital sex? It takes a man and a woman for marital sex to happen. That’s why they are capable of marriage. Would you agree that men and women have complementary reproductive systems? There is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
My aunt and uncle are not able to have children for medical reasons but were granted marriage anyway. How were they “capable of marriage”, in your eyes?
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
A lot of folks have THEIR truth…not THE truth
Click to expand...
Aren’t you also part of those “folks”? Isn’t all of this YOUR truth? We all believe in different things that we believe to be true. YOUR truth is not automatically THE truth. As Thorolfr stated, a lot of people claim to have the truth. You are one of them. 😉
 
Sy_Noe said:
While I agree (though I’m in the US), the Church doesn’t separate the 2. Or at least it sure actively opposes SS civil marriage. If I remember correctly, the Church wasn’t big on civil unions either even without the term marriage. It was said right here on this thread Catholics are called to oppose such laws. Admittedly it’s just 1 thing I struggle with in regards to the Catholic faith. I know you can’t speak for religioussoup, but I’m wondering how a Catholic/prospective Catholic gets around this? God bless and all the best as you journey in faith thru RCIA. Peace be with you. And to you Religioussoup.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thankfully it is something that hasn’t come up in our classes. I’ve been gathering information on it independently and I can’t figure out if the church is actually against civil marriage. I mean, it can decide who it decides to sacramentally marry, and does so just fine in Canada where nobody is forced to marry anybody else, and things go on with terrible normalcy.

I just don’t understand why endorsing the state oppression of a minority group would be something Catholics saw as part of their mission, so I guess I’ve just been assuming the best and assuming the church is only opposed to being forced to provide sacramental marriage for same sex people. :confused:
 
edwest2 said:
No loss has occurred. The Church will constantly repeat the truth. God will give the increase. The media has done much to corrupt proper thinking about sexual conduct. Legal does not always equal right or true.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
One could say the same thing about tradition. Just because something has been perceived as traditional doesn’t necessarily have to mean it’s right.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
The Supreme Court will visit same sex marriage again this year. Depending on the court’s decision the whole matter could go back to square one. Since six of the nine Justices are devout, practicing Roman Catholics and the other three are Jewish I think the gay community has good reason to worry.
Click to expand...
Well I would hope since you’re talking about the 6 devout practicing Catholic justices whose positions are at the SCOTUS and not the Vatican, if they see a right to SSM, they don’t allow their religious faith to interfere with civil law.
 
religioussoup said:
I know that I am probably going to get bashed by some people on this site, but I am a cafeteria Catholic to an extent and I’m not afraid to admit it. I am at a time in my life that I am doubting my faith a bit, but I think doubt in religion is healthy, instead of blindly accepting whatever’s written just because it’s the “Catholic law”.

Yes, I pick and choose some of the things I believe in my faith. But I do know this: I believe in God and God loves everyone. The bible was written (not by Jesus) during a time of persecution towards homosexuality. If the writers of the bible were to come out and say that it was totally okay to be gay because God wants everyone to be happy, they themselves would probably be persecuted.

If you would like to know how I “get around this”, I simply don’t. I refuse to admit that I think homosexuality is wrong, since that’s not what I believe. I don’t accept all of the Catholic teachings. Just because it’s written in the bible doesn’t mean I believe it. I know that probably doesn’t make me a good Catholic, but I don’t think it makes me a bad person.
Click to expand...
👍 Amen. No bashing from me. Thomas doubted. And If you were baptized or confirmed in the Catholic Church, that makes you a Catholic according to the Catholic Church. Whether you accept all or not. Even Fr Grondin here on CAF said in Ask an Apologist that “the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic”. I don’t think it makes you a bad person either. God knows your heart. Thank you (and CanadianNewbie too) for sharing. God bless you both.
 
CanadianNewbie said:
Yeah, thankfully it is something that hasn’t come up in our classes. I’ve been gathering information on it independently and I can’t figure out if the church is actually against civil marriage. I mean, it can decide who it decides to sacramentally marry, and does so just fine in Canada where nobody is forced to marry anybody else, and things go on with terrible normalcy.

I just don’t understand why endorsing the state oppression of a minority group would be something Catholics saw as part of their mission, so I guess I’ve just been assuming the best and assuming the church is only opposed to being forced to provide sacramental marriage for same sex people. :confused:
Click to expand...
:eek: Let me get this straight. You’re telling us in the states that the sky hasn’t fallen north of our border because of SSM and all those worries SS civil marriage opponents keep telling us about, are nothing for us to actually be scared about?? 😉
 
Sy_Noe said:
Just to point out it was Lisa herself who said, “it requires a male and a female and has procreative potential”. Then after I pointed out that many couples marry who have no procreation potential, someone else changed it to heterosexual intercourse. To me I would think the marriage love and bond between 2 monogamous people would extend to far more than the ability to have heterosexual sex to make it a marriage.
Click to expand...
And that is your opinion but do you not see it’s completely arbitrary? All heterosexual couples who marry have procreative potential…they have the right body parts as it were. NO homosexual couple has procreative potential. Further gay male relationships, both the sexual and the companion elements are far different than Lesbian relationships. So to put every possible combination of males, females, different numbers into the same category “marriage” simple renders the term meaningless. Do you not see that you are just making things up because it sounds “nice.”

Please define your made up terms “marriage love?” It used to have actual meaning but your version is just what the parties think it should be, not based on anything but today’s whims and cultural fads. Natural Marriage IS unique is consistent in its male/female element and emphasis on bearing of children within the marital bond.

You want to call a hot dog a donut it seems. Both have some similarlities on the surface but they are very very different.
 
Sy_Noe said:
:eek: Let me get this straight. You’re telling us in the states that the sky hasn’t fallen north of our border because of SSM and all those worries SS civil marriage opponents keep telling us about, are nothing for us to actually be scared about?? 😉
Click to expand...
This silly “sky is falling” test is absurd. The sky didn’t fall when no fault divorce was enacted. I remember that time and everyone thought oooh this is so liberating! Now we see the results and they are not pretty, particularly for children. That the “sky didn’t fall” the day the law went into effect is not relevant to the real and significant impact on society by this change. How about Roe…did the sky fall the day the decision was made? No. But tens of millions of dead babies later, we are fools to think there wasn’t a serious and detrimental result on society

Can you perhaps address the very rational arguments against gay “marriage”?.
 
Sy_Noe said:
One could say the same thing about tradition. Just because something has been perceived as traditional doesn’t necessarily have to mean it’s right.
Click to expand...
Traditions can change. Biology can not change. Please argue the case for equivalence between Natural Marriage and whatever the parties want it to be “marriage” that is being promoted by Secular Progressives.
 
religioussoup said:
Aren’t you also part of those “folks”? Isn’t all of this YOUR truth? We all believe in different things that we believe to be true. YOUR truth is not automatically THE truth. As Thorolfr stated, a lot of people claim to have the truth. You are one of them. 😉
Click to expand...
No the Church is the fullness of truth. We try to understand and incorporate that truth in our lives. I find often when someone disagrees with the Church’s position on a subject, they are not very well versed in the teaching and the reasoning behind it. One of the things you will learn as you move from “confused Catholic” to a practicing devout Catholic is that the Church’s teaching is not simply beautiful but completely rational, consistent, based on Natural Law as well as the Word of God. Unfortunately so many hear a short statement “the Church is against birth control” without bothering to read and understand this teaching they just spout some silly kneejerk statement like “what would some old celibate man know about this?” and dismiss it.

I assure you that if you learn more about your faith, question anything you do not understand or accept, you will be amazed and the brilliance and scholarship that goes into every word, every line of the Catechism.

In contrast the Secular Progressive viewpoint is arbitrary and relevant, based on the opinions of those in power at the time but will not stand up to rational argument. Thus the only response is “you’re a H8R! You’re a bigot! You’re a homophobe!”

Nope. We just know the truth and remember that’s what sets you free, not disordered relationships and sin. That’s what the Secular Progressives preach and it results in misery and death.
 
LisaA said:
And that is your opinion but do you not see it’s completely arbitrary? All heterosexual couples who marry have procreative potential…they have the right body parts as it were. NO homosexual couple has procreative potential. Further gay male relationships, both the sexual and the companion elements are far different than Lesbian relationships. So to put every possible combination of males, females, different numbers into the same category “marriage” simple renders the term meaningless. Do you not see that you are just making things up because it sounds “nice.”

Please define your made up terms “marriage love?” It used to have actual meaning but your version is just what the parties think it should be, not based on anything but today’s whims and cultural fads. Natural Marriage IS unique is consistent in its male/female element and emphasis on bearing of children within the marital bond.

You want to call a hot dog a donut it seems. Both have some similarlities on the surface but they are very very different.
Click to expand...
I see yours is no less arbitrary and that we define “potential” differently as well. Couples entering marriage who already know they are unable to bear children do not have the potential entering into the marriage. I also call a Chicago dog and chili dog both hot dogs. I can’t address your arbitrary definition of “very rational” arguments because frankly I don’t consider them all that very rational. Sorry but I just don’t. As I have said… agree to disagree… Peace
 
religioussoup said:
Aren’t you also part of those “folks”? Isn’t all of this YOUR truth? We all believe in different things that we believe to be true. YOUR truth is not automatically THE truth. As Thorolfr stated, a lot of people claim to have the truth. You are one of them. 😉
Click to expand...
The Truth is not a personal opinion. And for those who think Catholics “blindly” follow the Church, we should all know that informed obedience is what’s required.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed
 
Sy_Noe said:
I see yours is no less arbitrary and that we define “potential” differently as well. Couples entering marriage who already know they are unable to bear children do not have the potential entering into the marriage. I also call a Chicago dog and chili dog both hot dogs. I can’t address your arbitrary definition of “very rational” arguments because frankly I don’t consider them all that very rational. Sorry but I just don’t. As I have said… agree to disagree… Peace
Click to expand...
Biological truths are not opinion. Gender does not change. Only a male and female have any potential to create a child. That they may not have children doesn’t change the unique nature of Natural Marriage. There is nothing unique about gay and Lesbian relationships.
 
40.png
CanadianNewbie:
Yeah, thankfully it is something that hasn’t come up in our classes. I’ve been gathering information on it independently and I can’t figure out if the church is actually against civil marriage. I mean, it can decide who it decides to sacramentally marry, and does so just fine in Canada where nobody is forced to marry anybody else, and things go on with terrible normalcy.

I just don’t understand why endorsing the state oppression of a minority group would be something Catholics saw as part of their mission, so I guess I’ve just been assuming the best and assuming the church is only opposed to being forced to provide sacramental marriage for same sex people
Click to expand...
Amen. Where in Catholic teaching does it mandate that we must oppose gay marriage in the voting booth?
 
religioussoup said:
Aren’t you also part of those “folks”? Isn’t all of this YOUR truth? We all believe in different things that we believe to be true. YOUR truth is not automatically THE truth. As Thorolfr stated, a lot of people claim to have the truth. You are one of them. 😉
Click to expand...
OK, one more time for you and Thorolfr:

If you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

Soooo…If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter.
 
edwest2 said:
We must give no support to what some call “gay marriage.”

catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

Ed
Click to expand...
It has happened that candidates who gave speeches against gay marriage, once in office, changed their minds and voted for it. So you were tricked into voting for someone who did not adhere to his/her promises. Is it a sin not to vote, when it oftentimes happens that you are tricked into voting for something, but the promises made by the candidate are quickly forgotten after the election?
 
edwest2 said:
We must give no support to what some call “gay marriage.”

catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

Ed
Click to expand...
That article is not a mandate. It does not cite any Catholic authority that states we must oppose SSM.

It is simply a list of reasons why singleness is allegedly hurtful to health, and why straight marriage is good for society. But we know healthy singles, unhealthy married, and healthy gays.

The data is very suspect and selected to advance the agenda of the writer. And for every study cited therein, there are others that show the opposite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top