Britain to legalize gay marriage!

[Don_Machiavelli]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a legal one.

If the Catholic Church wants to forbid gay marriage, that’s it’s right.

If gays want to form their own LGBT church, and perform marriages rituals, that’s their right.

As long as they don’t harm other citizens, and keep their sexual lives private, like heterosexuals also should, then they have a right to do whatever they want.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hardly. I didn’t even mention Leviticus. I also referenced the quote about always having to forgive which served to balance my scriptural references rather than cherry pick.

And the Christian reflections on homosexuality in the New Testament are crystal clear. Even if you discount the mention of practicing homosexuals as referring to pederasty, there is no way to explain away Paul’s discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah and how men and men and women and women women practiced unnatural relations.

Because these beliefs match those found in the Old Testament, it is logical to assume that this is a carried over value and one not to be taken lightly. Even atheists view this as a major theme in the Bible because of its consistency, even if they do not agree with any of it.

And cherry picking as a term only applies when it misrepresents what the original author intended as is the case with virtually all “don’t judge” quotations from scripture that people use on this site. We are called to judge justly and nearly all of the New Testament’s remarks about judging refer to hypocrisy rather than forbidding all judging…

A good of example of cherry picking is if I were to quote Christ as saying, “I have come not to bring peace but the sword” as a support for seeking to kill others outright; that would be cherry picking. The quote is taken out of context and is not a clear declaration of Christ’s view of warfare. He was discussing how God’s law and the coming of his son would tear apart believers and non-believers, including family members.

Here is a fuller discussion on “judgment” and how we are called to judge justly without becoming tolerant of sin or haters of the sinner (a child of Christ).
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0702btb.asp

I haven’t used the term cherry picking incorrectly. You’re picking quotes to suit you, and so are they.

Also, there is an argument that when Paul is talking about homosexuality, he hs talking about pedestry not how we understand homosexuality today.

I sense that shortly if I continue down this route I’m going to be accused of supporting homosexuality, but hey, “if you don’t agree with me you’re my enemy” is the rule on internet forums, so I shall await that.

Back to the topic. The government are free to change the definition of marriage if they wish, but its quite clear that they’re not going to force Churches to carry them out. But I fear that some churches will come under pressure.

 

[brian12345]

As every human have right to live in the society and to do the different activities,so we have to analyze the different effects in the society.If there are no bad effects then we can allow them.Although gay marriage will have number of bad effects yet that is negligible.if they are not allowed for the marriage then they are creating different problems in the society.

 

[Santi2]

…but its quite clear that they’re not going to force Churches to carry them out.

So they say but, I would not put my money on it. There is a gay lobby in Parliament with no fixed goal posts. Religious exceptions as proposed by the coalition government only mean to appease and will be contested eventually because the gay lobby campaigns on the back of equal choice. We only need to refer to our current law on civil partnership. The CPA was passed excepting religious elements. However, early last year, Lord Alli tabled an amendment (at the eleventh hour) to lift the ban on religious elements within the CPA and was passed by the House of Lords. Although the amendment has not been implemented yet, one has to note LibDem’s declaration :…”the measures already promised by the end of this year to give religions the option of allowing civil partnerships to take place on their religious premises if they so wish. The first such ceremony is likely to take place early in 2012”. (para 6 libdemvoice.org/government-takes-another-step-towards-equal-civil-marriage-25268.html).

“…if they so wish” does not guarantee protection against parts of the Sexual Orientation Regulations and equality laws.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

We’re Catholics first, Americans (or whatever nationality) second. We can (and should) worry and pray about problems here and overseas.

I’d like to interject my own two cents here and agree with the above totally. Plus, these are fellow CHRISTIANS (no matter that they are Orthodox) being decimated in Egypt.
Christians are called to help one another, no matter what doctrinal and denominational differences we may have.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

True indeed.

 

[anp1215]

I’d like to interject my own two cents here and agree with the above totally. Plus, these are fellow CHRISTIANS (no matter that they are Orthodox) being decimated in Egypt.
Christians are called to help one another, no matter what doctrinal and denominational differences we may have.

 

[Nec5]

I haven’t used the term cherry picking incorrectly. You’re picking quotes to suit you, and so are they.

Also, there is an argument that when Paul is talking about homosexuality, he hs talking about pedestry not how we understand homosexuality today.

By that standard, quoting anyone is cherry picking, so it’s impossible to quote anyone.

And I already covered pederasty. There is no argument about homosexuality when Paul discusses Sodom and Gomorrah and men having unnatural relations with men.

There is an argument when Paul lists “practicing homosexuals” in the New Testament alongside drunkeness, fornication, etc… That argument is one about translation difficulties, intent, and pederasty.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m comfortable with this news. The law shouldn’t discriminate.

 

[CapeWind]

First let me say that I am a Catholic South African and that South Africans as a whole are exceptionally proud of our constitution which forbids discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, allows gay marriage and calls them “marriage”. This situation has been at least for 5 years already and there is no evidence whatsoever that legalized same-sex marriage: affects hetrosexual marriage, destroys a society’s moral fabric (South Africa has had during the time the constitution was being drafted 4 Nobel Peace awards), or any of the other evils posters on this forum have described.

Having come from a deeply devided and discriminatory society South Africans are committed to seperating emotion from reason and subjecting arguments to critical debate. The moderator of this thread has already had one message of mine deleted, something which would be illegal and seen as immoral in our country. Indeed as a society we see that kind of censorship as being a great deal more dangerous to society than same-sex marriage.

In the interests of bringing a more educated voice to this debate, please may I share the following videos. I would ask that you watch them (with an open mind) and then post your responses:

youtu.be/YpQHGPGejKs

youtu.be/SutThIFi24w

youtube.com/watch?v=NTwlOqKPC6I&feature=BFa&list=PLE99DE2F7B9726375&lf=results_video

 

[LemonAndLime]

By that standard, quoting anyone is cherry picking, so it’s impossible to quote anyone.

Exactly, I quite agree. Which is why you shouldn’t accuse someone else of doing it, because it only leaves you open to be accused of the same.

And I already covered pederasty. There is no argument about homosexuality when Paul discusses Sodom and Gomorrah and men having unnatural relations with men.

Can you clarify this? “There is no argument”? If I understand it correctly, you mean I cannot dispute it. Well, people can and have done so, however I don’t want to open that can of worms. If you put Paul’s words into historical context, he is more than likely to be talking about pedestry, and the culture around same-sex relations at the time.

 

[CMatt25]

There is no argument about homosexuality when Paul discusses Sodom and Gomorrah and men having unnatural relations with men.

Sure there is. They turned away from God and then they turned to what was unnatural for them. So yes if they were heterosexual then gay sex would have been unnatural to them. But if someone is homosexual then a same sex relationship is not unnatural to them.

 

[CMatt25]

I haven’t used the term cherry picking incorrectly. You’re picking quotes to suit you, and so are they.

Also, there is an argument that when Paul is talking about homosexuality, he hs talking about pedestry not how we understand homosexuality today.

I sense that shortly if I continue down this route I’m going to be accused of supporting homosexuality, but hey, “if you don’t agree with me you’re my enemy” is the rule on internet forums, so I shall await that.

 

[Elizabeth502]

L&L, the only “enemy” that many of us have on internet discussion forums is lack of information, or, inaccuracy.

Slicing and dicing particular passages of Scripture (incluidng Paul) doesn’t work for the Church which you recently joined. The entire moral theology of human sexuality is an integrated whole in Catholic doctrine. Homosexual behavior fits into that integrated whole, and cannot be removed from it. Sexual activity is part of what is called the essential three-legged stool in Catholic moral teaching: Scripture as authentically interpreted by the Roman Church, + sacred tradition (Patristics and more), + the Magisterium. The practicing Catholic is not permitted to engage in heterodox private interpretation of scripture to justify immoral behavior, or to justify legislation which supports, validates, encourages, and even celebrates immoral behavior.

 

[LemonAndLime]

L&L, the only “enemy” that many of us have on internet discussion forums is lack of information, or, inaccuracy.

Slicing and dicing particular passages of Scripture (incluidng Paul) doesn’t work for the Church which you recently joined. The entire moral theology of human sexuality is an integrated whole in Catholic doctrine. Homosexual behavior fits into that integrated whole, and cannot be removed from it. Sexual activity is part of what is called the essential three-legged stool in Catholic moral teaching: Scripture as authentically interpreted by the Roman Church, + sacred tradition (Patristics and more), + the Magisterium. The practicing Catholic is not permitted to engage in heterodox private interpretation of scripture to justify immoral behavior, or to justify legislation which supports, validates, encourages, and even celebrates immoral behavior.

The subtle suggestion that I’m somehow rogue in believing the Church’s teachings is completely unfounded. There is nothing in Catholic doctrine which forbids me from asking questions, nor is there anything in there which states that I must agree with everyone on CAF. I don’t think that anything I’ve said on this thread contradicts Church teaching.

 

[Kouyate42]

Sure there is. They turned away from God and then they turned to what was unnatural for them. So yes if they were heterosexual then gay sex would have been unnatural to them. But if someone is homosexual then a same sex relationship is not unnatural to them.

Thank you. The Greek language of Paul’s writings agrees with this.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine which forbids me from asking questions,

Being a Catholic naturally allows you, and all of us, to ask questions. What you seem, however, not yet to have a firm understanding about, is that Catholicism also requires and demands that the practicing, believing Catholic seek the available answers, the authentic answers (including authentically Catholic scriptural understanding)-- all of which are available from Vatican and U.S. Bishops’ documents. We don’t derive our moral answers about sexuality from private beliefs and private scriptural analysis; that’s how we differ from Protestantism. The Church’s interpretation of homosexual activity is that it is thoroughly out of sync with Scripture, with the structure of moral theology, and with the Tradition handed down since early Christianity. Any other opinion is a non-Catholic opinion. And it is hardly a well-informed Catholic position to declare that:

the Church’s teachings is completely unfounded.

 

[genesius28]

The nerve of the government – extending legal recognition of the relationship between two people who love each other, as if they were entitled to equal rights or something! Next they’ll be letting divorced people marry!

/sarcasm

All I can say is, praise God! Religion has no place in legal decisions. Period.

 

[jediliz]

The nerve of the government – extending legal recognition of the relationship between two people who love each other, as if they were entitled to equal rights or something! Next they’ll be letting divorced people marry!

/sarcasm

All I can say is, praise God! Religion has no place in legal decisions. Period.

Its not AUTHENTIC love…its based on LUST. There is no authentic love between two gay men or two gay women. Its just not possible. There is no Eros in unnatural sexual relations.

They are trying to redefine marriage in Britain. Marriage is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, period! No ifs, ands or buts!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The nerve of the government – extending legal recognition of the relationship between two people who love each other, as if they were entitled to equal rights or something! Next they’ll be letting divorced people marry!

/sarcasm

All I can say is, praise God! Religion has no place in legal decisions. Period.

Religion DOES have a responsibility to speak out about sinful practices which have a very high chance of contributing to the decline and ultimate decimation of society.

Also, let me ask you------------

You DO know that TRULY devout, practicing Catholics are forbidden totally from supporting gay marriage, right? And it it is Non-Negotiable, too. Plase brush up on the Cathecism, please.