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.
Thorolfr said:
This same kind of argument could also be used to justify why a black person has no right to marry a white person and vice versa. It might be argued, for example, that just because a black person is in love with and is sexually attracted to a certain white person, they can both control their passions and desires and do not have to act on them and have a choice of what they do with their genitals. Therefore, they have no right to get married and laws banning interracial marriage should not have been struck down by the Supreme Court because every white person has the right to marry another white person and every black person has the right to marry another black person. The right for someone to marry someone of the race of their choice should therefore not be protected.
Click to expand...
Scripture, Christian tradition and doctrine do not support preventing a man and woman of different races from marrying. Scripture, tradition and Christian doctrine very clearly condemn the practice of homosexuality.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Scripture, Christian tradition and doctrine do not support preventing a man and woman of different races from marrying. Scripture, tradition and Christian doctrine very clearly condemn the practice of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
That is a very modern idea of what scripture says. Scripture was long used to support racist views, slavery, etc.
 
estesbob said:
A absolutely disgusting comparison, to say the least.
Click to expand...
So you find it ‘absolutely disgusting’ - a lot of people, the majority in fact, feel the same way about your views on this topic. So what?

Such observations say nothing per se about the validity of the view or comparison in question. And the validity of my comparison is self-evident.

And you are still avoiding the main point. In both cases the courts applied a moral rule that had been approved by the democratic process, despite the fact that those who wished to oppress a minority had managed to swing votes passing unconstitutional laws.

That you do not like the fact that the Constitution prevents you from persecuting others is irrelevant.
 
LisaA said:
Further the underlying concept of protecting rights references those characteristics that are beyond the person’s CONTROL. I cannot control I was born female.
Click to expand...
It is highly debateable whether or not you can choose your sexuality. You can certainly not choose your physical birth gender, which is the relevant comparison to race in drawing the parallel between same sex marriage and different race marriage.

On the other hand you can clearly choose your religion, which is fairly universally accepted, especially here, as a protected class.
LisaA said:
Your right to use your genitals in a particular way is hardly being restricted in comparison.
Click to expand...
Obsessing over what other people do with their genitalia is irrelevant to this discussion. To reduce marriage to ‘using your genitals in a particular way’ is offensive and demeaning in so many ways.
 
LisaA said:
You are worshiping your brain waves and making a god of your feelings. And I have no idea why you bring in civil law at all. Completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Excuse me. I don’t need you to tell me who or what I am worshiping. I am worshiping God and Whom I believe is my Savior Christ as I understand God to be deep within my conscience, heart and soul. I at least strive to. But admit I am human and not perfect and have finite understanding like every other human actually does. And I’m willing to admit I walk by faith.
You’re right though in so far that I have a God given brain and use it to reason with and do not necessarily accept everything written and recorded nor as is interpreted by the CC.
 
LisaA said:
Further the underlying concept of protecting rights references those characteristics that are beyond the person’s CONTROL. I cannot control I was born female. My co worker was born black and female.

This is completely different than basing an identity on a set of sexual practices, clearly within a person’s control. Those who experience SSA were not born that way, it is not apparent from any outward characteristic (my co worker looks black every single day) and further they like every other human being can control whether or not to succumb to their feelings and passions. You could as easily claim that rapists are a protected class because they feel a compulsion to rape.

Further as the vast majority of blacks and other seriously persecuted minorities have said, you cannot equate what is fortunately a past practice of discriminating in hiring, housing etc albeit based on a self identification as gay/Lesbian with people who were enslaved and even when freed were restricted as to their movement, attendance at public events, schools, churches, and stores. Your right to use your genitals in a particular way is hardly being restricted in comparison.
Click to expand...
Lisa,

Over the decades, I watched and heard that “you can’t control your sexual desires” and this especially applied to teens because “they’re going to do it anyway.” If you try to argue for abstinence and chastity, and the fact that each person can control their sexual desires, the attacks immediately follow. As in, “no way,” “you’re wrong” and even one mother who posted on another thread that she would rather her daughter use contraception and her having sex was no big deal to her mom. And “that’s not reality.”

Teaching your children to do the right thing, teaching adults that you, and only you, decide when you have sex is the right thing. Not - we need to sell all forms of contraception and fewer sales cannot be allowed to happen. I mean, “we can’t let anyone convince anyone else of the truth: you can control yourself.” Gay, straight, etc. That has to be shut down immediately because it would mean less money for manufacturers of contraception products.

Ed
 
Sy_Noe said:
What I understand with all my heart and within the deepest depths of my conscience and soul is if I were a faithful Catholic, I surely wouldn’t need civil law to validate my faith. Nor would I have the need to make myself more secure in my faith by going around proclaiming I’m right on everything. That I absolutely certainly hold the fullness of truth and everyone else is wrong. And then talk about the pride of others.
Click to expand...
You DO see the tremendous irony in this post, right?
 
Sy_Noe said:
Excuse me. I don’t need you to tell me who or what I am worshiping. I am worshiping God and Whom I believe is my Savior Christ as I understand God to be deep within my conscience, heart and soul. I at least strive to. But admit I am human and not perfect and have finite understanding like every other human actually does. And I’m willing to admit I walk by faith.
You’re right though in so far that I have a God given brain and use it to reason with and do not necessarily accept everything written and recorded nor as is interpreted by the CC.
Click to expand...
So we make it up as we go along? we determine what we want to believe and create a god who supports that?
 
Sy_Noe said:
You’re right though in so far that I have a God given brain and use it to reason with and do not necessarily accept everything written and recorded nor as is interpreted by the CC.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood the “I’m Catholic but don’t believe the things the Catholic Church teaches” argument.

It’s utterly illogical. Nobody’s forcing you to be here. Is it some kind of cultural attachment? Do you just like the music? Hanging out with people on Sunday?
 
Sy_Noe said:
Excuse me. I don’t need you to tell me who or what I am worshiping. I am worshiping God and Whom I believe is my Savior Christ as I understand God to be deep within my conscience, heart and soul. I at least strive to. But admit I am human and not perfect and have finite understanding like every other human actually does. And I’m willing to admit I walk by faith.
You’re right though in so far that I have a God given brain and use it to reason with and do not necessarily accept everything written and recorded nor as is interpreted by the CC.
Click to expand...
Who made you arbiter and determiner of truth? Where did you get this idea that God would allow you to proclaim what is and what is not truth? He gave you intellect and reason, but only perhaps to recognize and listen to His Church.

Your view simpl allows everyone to create “god” in their own image, based upon their feelings and opinions. (Which is where we have arrived at in society).
 
DrTaffy said:
To me marriage is about love, mutual support and a shared life.

If you are claiming that it is about graphically described sex acts, which of us is cheapening marriage? :ehh:
Click to expand...
Your definition of marriage also includes every close family relationship and some friend relationships. Are you married to your parents? Are you married to your siblings?

Well under your definition, you most certainly are, because you have all 3 components in your close family.

This is what happens when you reject Natural Law and Church teaching for “feelings”. Utter silliness where marriage isn’t differentiated from siblings.
 
LisaA said:
Yes if you say divorced Catholics are considered to be sinners without the qualifying term “and remarried” it sounds as if you do not understand the Church’s teaching. Further while you think it’s pointless to clarify your words, realize that people who TRULY do not know will read them and think they accurately reflect the Church’s teaching. And you are correct, I know about annulments, in fact I went through the process and a dear friend works at the Tribunal so I have additional insight into the process.

I have NO idea what you mean about the Church providing benefits to legal spouses (divorced and remarried civilly) even though the Church considers this an adulterous relationship. I think you are trying to conflate providing employee benefits to certain Church employees and their being able to receive Communion. If so you are mixing apples and oranges. An employee benefit is a civil contract, not a Church teaching. Any employee of a Church related organization is entitled to the same benefits…Catholic, non Catholic (in fact we have a number of Muslilms working in our Catholic Hospital) married, divorced, single. These are completely unrelated issues.
Click to expand...
Oh come now darlin’, it’s really not that complicated. When you say, “an employee benefit is a civil contract, not a Church teaching,” (a statement with which I whole-heartedly agree), are you agreeing that Catholic hospitals should extend benefits to legally married same sex spouses?

A Catholic Bishop in MO recently had this to say about a Catholic hospital system extending benefits to same sex spouses:

“Recognizing God’s plan for marriage is not a matter of ‘the Church’s position,’ as Mercy characterized it, but rather, one of God’s own Word,” Johnston said. “And while the statement does not specify the ‘government regulations’ Mercy claims to require this change, no believing Christian worthy of the name should violate God’s law because of ‘regulations.’ Our ancestors refused to abandon the faith even when subjected to the cruelty and torture of the Roman Empire, but in our age unspecified ‘regulations,’ government funds, and fear of public ridicule is sufficient in order to secure the compliance of some.”

news-leader.com/story/news/business/2015/01/15/bishop-deeply-concerned-mercy-decision-offer-sex-benefits/21831873/

My question to Bishop Johnston, and to you, if you agree with him is:

If requiring Catholic hospitals to extend benefits to same sex spouses is violating the Church’s religious freedom…having the effect of forcing the Church to endorse gay marriage, then how is extending benefits to divorced and remarried couples (with no nullification of the previous marriage), not also an endorsement of divorce and adultery? Why the inconsistency?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Fine. Do you believe it should be limited to two people or can three people meet the above criteria?
Click to expand...
I feel that polygamy is a bad idea, and that there is objective evidence supporting that.

Regardless, this class of argument (even when it is not simply an attempt to smear gay marriage by associating it with something ‘icky’) fails for the simple reason that if you have no good argument against polygamy (or incest or paedophilia or one of the other tiresomely predictable things you lot try to compare to homosexuality) then you have no good argument against polygamy (or whatever). Live with it.

It does not mean that we have to admit an otherwise invalid argument against gay marriage just because the equivalent of that argument is the only one you can think of against polygamy (or whatever).
FollowChrist34 said:
That’s all I need here. 🙂
Click to expand...
And you are proud of the low standard of proof you embrace? :ehh:
 
estesbob said:
Depends on whether one believes in God and whether ones believes in absolute truths. If one believes I both then it would seem quite strange that God would wait 2,000 years to “reveal” to our generation that we’ve had it wrong about homosexuality since Christ founded our church.
Click to expand...
It’s only strange if humans believe they are infinite and all knowing beings as God and do not believe humans have finite understanding of the absolute truth. And believe that God is incapable of still speaking and that our understandings of God and of matters of faith can’t grow or evolve over time as we seek and walk along our lifelong journeys in faith and belief according to our understandings and our own unique experiences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top