Bishop Barron's statement on same sex marriages

[Rau]

…When I turn on the TV, I’m seeing more lesbians, and “married” men and even a bisexual. Cool, huh? That is what I’m against and will continue to point it out to people.

I’m against it also. The rubber hits the road with consequences such as what can now appear in children’s book and prime time tv.

But is it possible to win an argument that these things ought not happen, so long as we have the present law and the over-arching social acceptance of gay sexual relationships as a good and natural variant of interpersonal relationships and family structures?

I suspect no is the answer. Those books and that tv content are a logical consequence, and if society holds that gay marriage is a good and joyful thing, the formation of a new family, then we must have those books and that tv content. It can’t be avoided.

The consequences may eventually jolt more people to wake up, but ultimately the corrective action will need to be directed to the premise, not the consequences.

 

[meltzerboy]

Perhaps, given the Old Testament, He considered it settled business?

To this day, Judaism does not consider homosexual behavior and relationships “settled business.” A close reading of the Torah passages that call homosexual behavior an “abomination” reveals several questions and issues, in the context of surrounding verses and of the broader Jewish law, which Jewish scholars of all streams (denominations) are still discussing and debating.

For example, do homosexual relations, as noted in the Torah, apply in large part to relations within the same family rather than relations between non-family members? Why is there no specific mention in the Law of homosexual relations between women? Does the Torah injunction for all men to marry and not live alone outweigh a same-sex marriage, if that is the only kind of marriage one is able to enter into? With regard to the meaning of the Hebrew word for “abomination,” what degree of culpability is this particular kind of sin, of which there are several varieties? And so on.

 

[Rau]

…outweigh a same-sex marriage, if that is the only kind of marriage one is able to enter into?

Your post was all interesting, but this part caught my eye. It seems to assume that marriage includes the same sex variant as a given and available option! Is that to be found in the Torah?

 

[meltzerboy]

Your post was all interesting, but this part caught my eye. It seems to assume that marriage includes the same sex variant as a given and available option! Is that to be found in the Torah?

No, it is not. However, I was pointing out the Jewish dilemma of facing a life alone, which is not living according to the Law, compared to having a homosexual relationship, which would at the very least be living a monogamous life with a partner. Not necessarily marriage, however, although marriage is more directed toward the ideal than a relationship which might open itself to not so strong a commitment.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m against it also. The rubber hits the road with consequences such as what can now appear in children’s book and prime time tv.

But is it possible to win an argument that these things ought not happen, so long as we have the present law and the over-arching social acceptance of gay sexual relationships as a good and natural variant of interpersonal relationships and family structures?

I suspect no is the answer. Those books and that tv content are a logical consequence, and if society holds that gay marriage is a good and joyful thing, the formation of a new family, then we must have those books and that tv content. It can’t be avoided.

The consequences may eventually jolt more people to wake up, but ultimately the corrective action will need to be directed to the premise, not the consequences.

But the law can’t tell us what to believe. The government cannot say that we have to believe that SSM is valid … in much the same way that, if the laws were changed to get rid of SSM, it wouldn’t prevent people from believing SSM to be valid.

 

[Rau]

But the law can’t tell us what to believe. The government cannot say that we have to believe that SSM is valid … in much the same way that, if the laws were changed to get rid of SSM, it wouldn’t prevent people from believing SSM to be valid.

Certainly.

 

[Rau]

No, it is not. However, I was pointing out the Jewish dilemma of facing a life alone, which is not living according to the Law, compared to having a homosexual relationship, which would at the very least be living a monogamous life with a partner. Not necessarily marriage, however, although marriage is more directed toward the ideal than a relationship which might open itself to not so strong a commitment.

It seems hard to believe that all forms of “aloneness” are deemed less commendable than any form of togetherness. It seems odd that a distorted sexual monogamy is better than a chaste life.

I suppose the bottom line is to question whether a person who does not find a person to marry deserves any condemnation at all.

 

[Lea101]

Children’s media. Like the gay is normal story books they get in kindergarten like King and King? Who offered those books to schools? Why?

amazon.com/King-Linda-Haan/dp/1582460612

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities-ebook/dp/B00EGJAU9W/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492375609&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+diversity+day

When I was growing up, ALL books for children were good and wholesome and suitable. And most songs were not about ANYTHING sinful. The same with TV.

When I turn on the TV, I’m seeing more lesbians, and “married” men and even a bisexual. Cool, huh? That is what I’m against and will continue to point it out to people.

Visit any LGBT news site to get their perspective, especially about the ongoing actions they are taking.

Ed

Well, I hope you are just as disturbed with straight couples having sex outside of marriage/any sins against lust imo. I never really saw the LGBT representation as more sinful that Jack and Mary hooking up, which is a lot more prevalent in the media. Just my opinion.

I personally never understand why there are people who are more angry over lgbt on TV than lust in general. It just comes across as homophobia (like actual disdain for them, not just disagreement) to me. Then again, I’m probably a lot more younger than you, and I have a lot of loved ones who are in the community. I’m not against their representation, just against the ones that imply/show that they’re in a sexual relationship (just thought I should clarify)

 

[Lea101]

The consequences may eventually jolt more people to wake up, but ultimately the corrective action will need to be directed to the premise, not the consequences.

That’s a good point.

 

[Rau]

Well, I hope you are just as disturbed with straight couples having sex outside of marriage/any sins against lust imo. I never really saw the LGBT representation as more sinful that Jack and Mary hooking up, which is a lot more prevalent in the media. Just my opinion.

I personally never understand why there are people who are more angry over lgbt on TV than lust in general. It just comes across as homophobia (like actual disdain for them, not just disagreement) to me. Then again, I’m probably a lot more younger than you, and I have a lot of loved ones who are in the community. I’m not against their representation, just against the ones that imply/show that they’re in a sexual relationship (just thought I should clarify)

This is also a very valid point. These days, when boy/girl friend relationships are depicted on tv, any close relationship is portrayed as sexual, as though it is the sexual content that is the measure of closeness and marriage is a further step.

I can understand the greater concern of gay relationships depicted on tv or in children’s materials. It’s not to problematic to explain a boy kissing girl scene on tv (it may present no difficulty at all), but boy kisses boy is somewhat more awkward I think.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I hope you are just as disturbed with straight couples having sex outside of marriage

I generally don’t try to quantify such things but since you brought it up, I can understand how one might say “just as disturbed” inasmuch as mortal sin is mortal sin regardless of which specific sin is being portrayed … But someone else might say “No they aren’t equally disturbing because in both cases the people aren’t married, but the former case also entails rejection of church teaching on gender. In other words, it’s rejection of two doctrines vs rejection of one.”

 

[edwest2]

I’m against it also. The rubber hits the road with consequences such as what can now appear in children’s book and prime time tv.

But is it possible to win an argument that these things ought not happen, so long as we have the present law and the over-arching social acceptance of gay sexual relationships as a good and natural variant of interpersonal relationships and family structures?

I suspect no is the answer. Those books and that tv content are a logical consequence, and if society holds that gay marriage is a good and joyful thing, the formation of a new family, then we must have those books and that tv content. It can’t be avoided.

The consequences may eventually jolt more people to wake up, but ultimately the corrective action will need to be directed to the premise, not the consequences.

Of course it can be avoided. Turn off your TV. I watch on occasion to keep track. To make sure I am reporting on it correctly. It’s not a good to promote deviant sexual behavior.

If people don’t have properly formed consciences and are informed, then certain good things are less likely to happen. I pray they make better choices.

Ed

 

[Lea101]

I generally don’t try to quantify such things but since you brought it up, I can understand how one might say “just as disturbed” inasmuch as mortal sin is mortal sin regardless of which specific sin is being portrayed … But someone else might say “No they aren’t equally disturbing because in both cases the people aren’t married, but the former case also entails rejection of church teaching on gender. In other words, it’s rejection of two doctrines vs rejection of one.”

Sure, but we both kind of know that this isn’t the thought process of a lot of people. Most of the time it has to do with the fact that they are “different”/“gross” (in more hateful people)/some emotional response as opposed to a more rational one about church teachings. There seem to be a bigger focus on the attraction being “wrong” instead of the sex. Now, I have no idea if that makes any sense at all, I’m finding it quite hard to explain it.

I used to think differently but I kind of feel that this doesn’t matter when you’re in front of God.

(side note: kind of interesting you said that, I always view it in a very simple manner. If the sex is not life giving+love giving within marriage, I just dismiss it as plain wrong. So they both come across as equal sins to me.)

 

[Peter_J]

Sure, but we both kind of know that this isn’t the thought process of a lot of people. Most of the time it has to do with the fact that they are “different”/“gross” (in more hateful people)/some emotional response as opposed to a more rational one about church teachings.

Definitely. Just consider school boys calling people they don’t like gay, queer, etc without the slightest intention of promoting morality or church teaching.

(side note: kind of interesting you said that, I always view it in a very simple manner. If the sex is not life giving+love giving within marriage, I just dismiss it as plain wrong. So they both come across as equal sins to me.)

Well my basic point was that I think reasonable people can disagree about that. I.e. I can understand how you’d prefer to just say both are wrong rather than describing one as worse than the other.

 

[Lea101]

Well my basic point was that I think reasonable people can disagree about that.

True

 

[Deus_tecum]

May I ask a relatively straightforward question? Has anyone here, or anyone that you might know, been negatively affected in some way by same sex marriage being allowed?

And can we please leave children out of this, as adoption by gay couples was allowed before gay marriage was legalised. I’d like to know that since that time has anyone been specifically affected.

Society is affected overall when any form of immorality is legitimized, and approved. Sociological studies show that laws do over time influence society’s sense of morality. Why should we leave children out of this? Is the society they are raised in not important?

 

[Peter_J]

Society is affected overall when any form of immorality is legitimized, and approved. Sociological studies show that laws do over time influence society’s sense of morality.

And it works the other way as well. As for example, the US Supreme Court legalized contraception in the 1960s, and sodomy (for homosexual and heterosexual couples alike) in 2003. It seems clear to me that the reason those decisions were separated by so many years was that the justices were motivated by (Protestant) notions of what’s moral and what isn’t.

 

[edwest2]

And it works the other way as well. As for example, the US Supreme Court legalized contraception in the 1960s, and sodomy (for homosexual and heterosexual couples alike) in 2003. It seems clear to me that the reason those decisions were separated by so many years was that the justices were motivated by (Protestant) notions of what’s moral and what isn’t.

It has to be understood that special interest groups did exert pressure, including with the abortion disaster which was made legal in 1973 for vague reasons. Do you have any evidence that Protestants were involved in the examples you gave?

Ed

 

[Peter_J]

Do you have any evidence that Protestants were involved in the examples you gave?

No. I’m saying that the motivating morality (leaving abortion aside as a different issue) is Protestant morality.

But to be honest perhaps I shouldn’t have even brought that in as it’s irrelevant. SCOTUS should not push a morality regardless.

 

[edwest2]

No. I’m saying that the motivating morality (leaving abortion aside as a different issue) is Protestant morality.

But to be honest perhaps I shouldn’t have even brought that in as it’s irrelevant. SCOTUS should not push a morality regardless.

On a Catholic forum, it should be mentioned that morality is an issue. The laws that founded and guided this nation were based on morality.

Ed