Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[Sy_Noe]

What’s true is not up for a vote.

The Church teaches, as did Jesus, that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Church also teaches, as does the bible, that homosexual acts are immoral and against God’s will.

The Catholic Church (which I do understand you believe is the one) and Her interpretations of the Bible. But I and many others of faith don’t necessarily share your beliefs or take every single word in the Bible literally though.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The Catholic Church (which I do understand you believe is the one) and Her interpretations of the Bible. But I and many others of faith don’t necessarily share your beliefs or take every single word in the Bible literally though.

I guess that’s why you aren’t Catholic.(not that the Church teaches that all words in the bible must be taken literally)

Why are you commenting on the warnings of a Catholic Bishop?

 

[FollowChrist34]

When did I ever mention my views about abortion???

Just because I think two men should be allowed to marry does not mean that you can start to make assumptions about what I believe.

As a matter of fact, I am not only a practicing Christian, but I am a practicing Catholic. Baptized, Confirmed, and mass EVERY Sunday. I am simply confused about my faith.

Sorry - that was confusing. I meant to reference the general secular rationale for abortion - it is a woman’s right to make the choice. The government (or God forbid, Church teaching) has no say. The decision to abort and carrying it out affect her alone. The right to self-determination.

 

[Sy_Noe]

When did I ever mention my views about abortion???

Just because I think two men should be allowed to marry does not mean that you can start to make assumptions about what I believe.

As a matter of fact, I am not only a practicing Christian, but I am a practicing Catholic. Baptized, Confirmed, and mass EVERY Sunday. I am simply confused about my faith.

Soup, I don’t recall you did. This thread is about marriage anyway… I was baptized and confirmed too but I’m not Mass every wk. So I know I’m not practicing. But you think then a Catholic can believe 2 men should be allowed to marry and can still be a practicing Catholic? I’m not at all saying you’re not. You attend Mass and I assume follow at least some of the other teachings.

 

[edwest2]

No I dont think the definition of the word “marriage” should afford people the automatic right to choose the gender or number or species or age of the person/people to whom they wish to be married.

If you want to create a new word for some different lifestyle combination, then by all means argue your case. But dont lets pretend that marriage could mean anything we claim it to mean.

Otherwise, lets call some women husbands and some men wives.
Lets call monogamy…polygamy. And let married men call themselves bachelors.
Let’s create a new category of marital fidelity called “sleeping around”.

Just as you feel that “very strong justification is required” to force ones’ views on another person as regards who they should be allowed to marry, I equally feel that very strong justification is needed from people who belatedly want to change the long-standing status quo. All we have so far is;
*The argument from eros/desire. (If it feels good do it.)
*The argumentum ad baculum. (Gay people will self-harm if you dont give them what they want.)
*The argument from finance. (Govt. tax/welfare bias towards gender-balanced marriage.)
*The argument from stigma. (Why wont everybody approve of my lifestyle?)

I think same sex "marriage’ is unnatural.
…unless you can find me some examples of animals getting married.

Thank you for posting this. Well done.

Ed

 

[Sy_Noe]

I guess that’s why you aren’t Catholic.(not that the Church teaches that all words in the bible must be taken literally)

Why are you commenting on the warnings of a Catholic Bishop?

Well technically the Church teaches I am. But Catholics not in full communion and non Catholics are allowed to comment.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well technically the Church teaches I am. But Catholics not in full communion and non Catholics are allowed to comment.

Wow. I wonder if the Black Panthers would let me in. I’m white and read National Review.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well technically the Church teaches I am. But Catholics not in full communion and non Catholics are allowed to comment.

I know you are allowed to, but why do you care?

 

[Thorolfr]

Wow. I wonder if the Black Panthers would let me in. I’m white and read National Review.

I’m not a Catholic, but I thought the rule was Once a Catholic Always a Catholic. So if Sy Noe was baptized a Catholic isn’t he still considered a Catholic? Maybe they changed the rule.

 

[edwest2]

Why must he turn it into a “war”?
That meaning of marriage will stay intact for those people.
For others who have another definition, they will not affect each other.

And that’s it.

.

It is a serious matter to redefine marriage. It will cause social confusion and there is evidence that other types or forms of marriages will be added to the list. The Catholic Church tells us that marriage has only one true definition. On this forum, it is our duty to help people understand that marriage has certain characteristics based on biology and true, sacrificial love.

Peace,
Ed

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m not a Catholic, but I thought the rule was Once a Catholic Always a Catholic. So if Sy Noe was baptized a Catholic isn’t he still considered a Catholic? Maybe they changed the rule.

Yes, you are correct. Aren’t the ELCA and the Missouri Synod both Lutheran? Do you have the right to comment on Missouri Synod affairs? The desire to? Not saying it’s right or wrong.

 

[religioussoup]

Sorry - that was confusing. I meant to reference the general secular rationale for abortion - it is a woman’s right to make the choice. The government (or God forbid, Church teaching) has no say. The decision to abort and carrying it out affect her alone. The right to self-determination.

Oh I know about the “secular rationale”.

My views on abortion are not quite the “secular rationale”.

I hope that people will learn to accept our fellow brothers and sisters who happen to be gay. I can’t imagine how hard it is to be faced with judgement and oppression as they are, inside of the church and out. I do not agree with the church’s current standing on homosexuality.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Oh I know about the “secular rationale”.

My views on abortion are not quite the “secular rationale”.

I hope that people will learn to accept our fellow brothers and sisters who happen to be gay. I can’t imagine how hard it is to be faced with judgement and oppression as they are, inside of the church and out. I do not agree with the church’s current standing on homosexuality.

I am sure you know this but it can’t be said enough: the Church teaches that SSA is not a sin, just the practice of homosexuality. The Catholic has duty to act with charity toward everyone and to recognize the dignity of every human being. This includes those in sin and doesn’t have a darn thing to do with recognizing gay marriage.

 

[religioussoup]

I am sure you know this but it can’t be said enough: the Church teaches that SSA is not a sin, just the practice of homosexuality. The Catholic has duty to act with charity toward everyone and to recognize the dignity of every human being. This includes those in sin and doesn’t have a darn thing to do with recognizing gay marriage.

Many people on this thread have already made this point, but if it “doesn’t have a darn thing to do with recognizing gay marriage”, then why is it hard for people to recognize it?

 

[edwest2]

Many people on this thread have already made this point, but if it “doesn’t have a darn thing to do with recognizing gay marriage”, then why is it hard for people to recognize it?

The media has done a very good job in repeating various claims by gay marriage advocates. As the Church has told us, the true definition of marriage is what we must promote, not a new version.

Ed

 

[religioussoup]

Soup, I don’t recall you did. This thread is about marriage anyway… I was baptized and confirmed too but I’m not Mass every wk. So I know I’m not practicing. But you think then a Catholic can believe 2 men should be allowed to marry and can still be a practicing Catholic? I’m not at all saying you’re not. You attend Mass and I assume follow at least some of the other teachings.

This thread is about marriage! Not sure where the abortion came from…and I do think that a Catholic can believe that two men should be allowed to marry because I am that Catholic I absolutely do attend mass and follow some of the other teachings.

I believe that a Catholic can believe that two men should be allowed to marry. God called us to love and I support love. If two men want to marry because they are in love, who am I to judge? I’ve never been in love before and they’d know better than I do about that subject.

 

[religioussoup]

The media has done a very good job in repeating various claims by gay marriage advocates. As the Church has told us, the true definition of marriage is what we must promote, not a new version.

I’m just wondering, if it doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage, then why is the church not accepting our fellow brothers and sisters in that position of wanting to be married?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I know you are allowed to, but why do you care?

Why do I care about the bishop warning of a war? Well for just one reason… because I don’t see those of us, whether we are gay or straight, who support civil marriage equality for our brothers and sisters, as waging a war on you. See DaddyGirl’s post. And our ELCA Christian sibling Thorolfr’s contributions have been invaluable on explaining why we care. Our Catholic friends ReligiousSoup and others too. The societal debate is about civil marriage and whether 2 people of the same sex should have the right to marry. Not Catholic Sacramental marriage. No one that I can see is telling the CC they must change what is Catholic Sacramental marriage.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Many people on this thread have already made this point, but if it “doesn’t have a darn thing to do with recognizing gay marriage”, then why is it hard for people to recognize it?

The Church follows Scripture’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Church’s teachings on homosexuality are also based on Scripture (and tradition, including Judaism before it).

Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word of God. To depart from the Word is to depart from Christ.

(this is the cliff notes version of my argument for your sake and mine)

 

[DrTaffy]

No I dont think the definition of the word “marriage” should afford people the automatic right to choose the gender or number or species or age of the person/people to whom they wish to be married.

The definition does not, it is just a description of what the word is used to mean. But a priori anyone is free to do anything, unless you have a good reason why they should not be allowed to do so.

So if you want to say that people are not free to marry someone of a given [race/sex] you need to justify this restriction to the rest of society or we are going to tell you to mind your own business and leave the [same sex/interracial] couples to get on with their lives.

If you want to create a new word for some different lifestyle combination, then by all means argue your case. But dont lets pretend that marriage could mean anything we claim it to mean.

No, while any word could mean anything in principle, ‘marriage’ means the same thing it has since Roman times - a civil legal arrangement covering two (or more) people who are coming together to form a new family unit. And in roman history it was even used several times explicitly to refer to same sex couples.

Now if you want to use it in a more restrictive religious sense, feel free. If you want to come up with a new word, copyright (or whatever the appropriate intellectual property term would be) it, use that in a more restrictive sense and prevent the nasty homosexuals from using it, feel free.

But if you want to seize ownership of the preexisting word ‘marriage’, tell the rest of us that we may only use it as you dictate, and prevent the nasty homosexuals from using it, then no. Indeed no.

Just as you feel that “very strong justification is required” to force ones’ views on another person as regards who they should be allowed to marry, I equally feel that very strong justification is needed from people who belatedly want to change the long-standing status quo.

Great, feel away. Let me know how that works out for you.

Your problem is that you need the assent of people like me to force your will on the homosexuals. If push comes to shove we can just shrug and ignore you. Even the majority of ‘Catholics’ disagree with you.

So a hardline dogmatic line of repeating your opinion and making no attempt to engage with the other side is a tactically disastrous approach for you.

DrTaffy;12701733:

Lion IRC;12700470:

The natural definition of marriage does not discriminate against gender or race - it discriminates against unnatural sexual preferences and proclivities of which there are hundreds and thousands of varieties.

Sexual preferences for particular genders or skin colours are perfectly natural. So it seems that you have no problem with same sex marriage.

I think same sex "marriage’ is unnatural.
…unless you can find me some examples of same sex animals getting married.

I only referred to sexual preference - where there are plenty of examples of homosexual preference in nature.

You are the one who referred to “the natural definition of marriage”, so yes do please find me some examples of animals getting married in nature.