Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
The assumption seems to be that any legal recognition of same-sex couples is putting them on the level of marriage and is approving sexual behavior. But it would be quite possible to create legislation that allowed people who are deeply involved in one another’s lives to have certain kinds of benefits as a couple or group. This legislation could be used by same-sex couples, by cohabiting couples, by polygamists–but it could also be used by people who have no sexual relationship with each other at all.

It is not clear to me that such an approach is condemned by the Church, although the document to which you linked doesn’t consider it as a possibility.

Ediwn
Click to expand...
Yes, and in making all such relationships roughly equal under the law, such legislation would inevitably devalue marriage as an institution. If anyone can have a civilly recognized union essentially equivalent to marriage, then marriage is no longer important.

Indeed, if a society wishes to recognize homosexual marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage, there is no reason whatever not to extend the same benefits to any persons wishing to obtain the benefits of marriage for their particular variety of union–polygamists, polyandrists, non-sexual unions such as business partners, mother-daughter, mother-son, or other family member groupings. Those living in a commune might wish to all enjoy the benefits of group marriage. Even pederasts would no doubt wish to obtain the benefits of marriage for their pairings, except for the impediment of age of consent laws.

But all such groupings are not equally beneficial to society. There is no reason for society to give prefential treatment to unions which are detrimental rather than beneficial to society.

It was precisely because marriage is important that it has historically been recognized in civil law and given special privileges. Marriage and family is the bedrock of civilization. If society no longer considers marriage important to civilization, there’s no need to give civil preference to any particular type of union. But the results of neglect of marriage will inevitably be played out in civilizational decay.
 
jomoco said:
The equal right to marry and be accepted societally Rig.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Every person has always had the right to marry. There have always been restrictions on this, such as one can not marry one’s parent, children, siblings, animals, multiple partners, inanimate objects, etc.
 
jomoco said:
The equal right to marry and be accepted societally Rig.

jomoco
Click to expand...
pnewton said:
Every person has always had the right to marry. There have always been restrictions on this, such as one can not marry one’s parent, children, siblings, animals, multiple partners, inanimate objects, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I would add that a homosexual union can’t be a marriage by definition. There is no “equal right” to be had.
 
We understand each other guys.

You choose to judge and societally denounce them.

I do not, but rather leave such judgements in Christ’s Hands.

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
We understand each other guys.

You choose to judge and societally denounce them.

I do not, but rather leave such judgements in Christ’s Hands.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Again, you received answers, ignored them and repeated your earlier charge. You can’t be reasoned with.
 
rlg94086 said:
Again, you received answers, ignored them and repeated your earlier charge. You can’t be reasoned with.
Click to expand...
Perhaps rather that your understanding of judge not lest ye be judged, is a tad bit more tenuous than mine in terms of obeying and conviction of belief?

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
Perhaps rather that your understanding of judge not lest ye be judged, is a tad bit more tenuous than mine in terms of obeying and conviction of belief?

jomoco
Click to expand...
Your personal interpretation is lacking, and your application is misguided.
 
jomoco said:
Perhaps rather that your understanding of judge not lest ye be judged, is a tad bit more tenuous than mine in terms of obeying and conviction of belief?

jomoco
Click to expand...
Ezekiel 3:18

If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. 19 If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life.
20 But if the just turn away from their right conduct and do evil when I place a stumbling block before them, then they shall die. Even if you warned them about their sin, they shall still die, and the just deeds that they performed will not be remembered on their behalf. I will, however, hold you responsible for their blood. 21 If, on the other hand, you warn the just to avoid sin, and they do not sin, they will surely live because of the warning, and you in turn shall save your own life.
 
jomoco said:
So your prescription is to first denounce them societally, then shun them, and if they persist in their quest for equal rights, to jail them?

Seems a bit stone age to me mate.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Yet no answer provided had made mention of denouncement or shunning.
jomoco said:
You would deny them the equal rights they seek as children of God.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Yet no one provided any such response indicating any denial of any rights.
jomoco said:
We understand each other guys.

You choose to judge and societally denounce them.

I do not, but rather leave such judgements in Christ’s Hands.

jomoco
Click to expand...
You misrepresented my responses and then pronounced them to be ‘stone age’
You are claiming denial of rights when no one has mentioned anything like that.
And now you are claiming everyone else is sitting in judgement.

You are the only one I have seen passing judgement here my friend.
 
pnewton said:
Ezekiel 3:18

If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. 19 If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life.
20 But if the just turn away from their right conduct and do evil when I place a stumbling block before them, then they shall die. Even if you warned them about their sin, they shall still die, and the just deeds that they performed will not be remembered on their behalf. I will, however, hold you responsible for their blood. 21 If, on the other hand, you warn the just to avoid sin, and they do not sin, they will surely live because of the warning, and you in turn shall save your own life.
Click to expand...
Ezekiel and Christ are distinctly separate individuals, with Christ’s precepts supreme.

jomoco
 
homosxual- marriage => homo+sexual[prepare to drop sexual]+mirage [marriage between same sex] => hommirage = newly appointed name for the disorder of 2 persons of the same sex that try to make it look like holy matrimony, minus the holy.

At least give us the charity to use a different name to avoid slapping thousands of years of a sacred relationship established by God.
 
jomoco said:
Ezekiel and Christ are distinctly separate individuals, with Christ’s precepts supreme.

jomoco
Click to expand...
The words *are *Christ’s, if you check. There is a false dualism in separating God, as He spoke to Ezekiel, from God, as He walked in the flesh. Same God. Rather that discounting that which does not resonate well (making God in our image), we should seek to understand why both are true and make ourselves in His image.

In this case, what has been said multiple times here shows why the two do not conflict. We can and must discern that which is sin and that which is holy. Yet at the same time we must not judge the soul of the one who commits sin. As a Catholic, this presents no problem as we understand that object sin does not always translate to subjective sin.

Non-catholic Christians also understand this. That is why when a three-year old lies or steals and dies young, there is an understanding that they have not reached an age of reason whereby they understand what sin is. Likewise, even adults may not have a well-formed conscience as to what is sin. While not as innocent as the three-year old, the Church does not dispair of their fate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top