D
DCNBILL
Guest
Are you suggesting God has changed?
- Status
H
HelenRose
Guest
I see no bigotry or discrimination in the Church’s teaching on same sex attraction. The teaching that sex is intended for procreation is a teaching that is applied to all people no matter what the sexual attraction may be. The Church teaches that it is just as wrong to engage in artificial contraception as it is to engage in same sex actions. There are those who disagree with this teaching but one can not say that the Church is being discrimatory. The teachings are equal across the board.
Babies are the purpose of sex both in natural law and most especially in the laws of nature. Human beings are the only creatures that are trying to separate sex from babies.
Basic natural science is the study of procreation.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Careful!
It’s not that all sexual acts must be intended for procreation. It’s that all sexual acts must be ordered towards procreation.
H
HelenRose
Guest
My terminology often needs adjusting. Thanks.
I am sure that many people believe that sexual acts were created primarily for the enjoyment of human beings. I think they miss the point. In the world of nature this is not so.
I wonder why it is that many people who have been drawn to the worship of nature are the very same people who believe that same sex attraction and abortion.are okay. These behaviors, in my reasoning, seem to contradict the very essence of nature.
I am often reminded of the commercial that said “It’s not smart to fool Mother Nature”
It may be that the more the human specie attempts to prevent the creation of babies the more frenetic and and desperate sexual activity will become.
M
mab23
Guest
The same things don’t apply - is you can’t really compare Sodom and Gomorrah to the now and present time period - they are at 2 ends of the spectrum , and Jesus wasn’t in the picture then
people were doing far more extreme things back then that are not being done today, for example killing disobedient slaves and children, the whole eye for eye tooth for a tooth thing…
so comparing Sodom and Gomorrah to now and present day and whether our state/nation separated from our church is to accept gay marriage , the title and give them equal opportunities/rights as non gay marriages … it just not the same
**Scripture is read everyday at mass. Romans 1:26-27 hasn’t been removed. - **
never said it was removed… so we know homosexuality is a sin , I think thats pretty clear
now if it also said that allowing homosexuals to be married in the same nation as your church , then i could see why people spend so much time and effort on this matter
there is no “Problem” with reading the bible as long as you read it!
will i not get the same message…
also i don’t read the bible for its passages on homosexuality , thats one sin im not even worried about committing - i read it for everything else
C
Corki
Guest
And this is why Catholics aren’t biggots. We don’t discriminate in terms of whose sexual acts must be ordered towards procreation. **All **peoples sexual acts must be ordered toward procreation.
S
sw85
Guest
This is begging the question. What I am saying is that there is no “right” to state-subsidized sodomy.
Heterosexual behaviors are subsidized by the state because in principle they tend to produce children, and because the care and disposition of children is a matter of public interest. There is no such possibility with homosexuality and therefore no compelling public interest. They are emphatically *not *equal in this respect, therefore equal treatment would be unjust.
Before this goes much farther I should remind you that you are duty-bound to submit to the magisterium of the Church on this and every other issue, and that your publicly attacking it in this manner verges dangerously on the sin of scandal.
“They” is homosexuals demanding gay “marriage.”who is “THEY”
and i believe the OP posted about gay marriage not sodomy or sexual habits
marriage, you know the commitment to one forever… that thing
Gay “marriage” is by definition about state subsidized sodomy because “marriage” is an explicitly sexual institution in principle. Marriage is not separable from sexual habits.
(A) the Constitution clearly does not forbid people from making laws according to their moral sensibilities, it simply forbids state-established religion, and (B) I can’t speak for anyone else but I for one don’t care what the Constitution says because I regard it as a radically deficient and philosophically valueless document produced by a group of deist and Protestant Freemason traitors. So even if it were true that the Constitution demands X (and, in this case, it doesn’t), then that sounds to me like an argument that the Constitution needs to be amended to prohibit X.
That *is *the destruction of heteronormative marriage. If it ceases to be heteronormative it ceases to be marriage, because it is no longer concerned primarily with the creation and disposition of children. It becomes just another vehicle for distributing tax dollars to leftist constituencies.
All these people running around saying marriage is just another contract and any two consenting adults should be able to form a contract are by their words attacking the institution of marriage. They are treating it as if it were of no more social importance than a manufacturer’s warranty on an old air conditioner – just a little more putty to be manipulated by the sovereign will.
But at any rate this is not the point of your post, is it? Even if it were true that there is no good reason to ban gay “marriage” (and it doesn’t – homosexual behaviors in general are a social menace, both in terms of morality and of public health), it doesn’t follow that gay “marriage” should be legalized. Because, after all, laws are promulgated on the basis of the common good – because they serve some common interest, not because they don’t harm the common interest. There is no common interest in attaching social, legal, or economic impetus to homosexuality. Therefore there is no basis to promulgate gay “marriage.” Therefore gay “marriage” should not be promulgated. QED.
Why isn’t it? The fact that a thing has always and everywhere been done pretty much exactly the same way is evidence that it corresponds to some real and permanent need of human nature.
I don’t think slavery is always and everywhere an unequivocal evil, btw. We still deal with it today (literally in the form of sex slavery, operationalized in the form of “wage slavery”). Aristotle wrote of “natural slaves,” people we today would be called imbeciles – people who cannot be expected to take care of themselves. My brother is one.
What in the world is this supposed to mean?
That sounds like a good reason not to permit gay “marriage,” marriage being by nature primarily concerned with childbearing and child-raising.
R
rfournier103
Guest
DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT HOW I SEE THE DEBATE HERE ON THIS FORUM. THIS IS COMMENTARY ON PUBLIC DISCUSSION OUTSIDE OF THIS FORUM.
Just like on the playground in elementary school, if you disagree with the popular kids (media, or any number of celebrities), you will be laughed at, scorned, ridiculed, etc… In the United States we have the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately, though you may be free to say what you will, many times there are consequences other than the government throwing you in prison (which is what the First Amendment was written to protect us from). The most troubling thing to me in this “discussion” is the utter lack of civility; “If you’re against this, you’re a bigot!!!” I’m saddened that in this day and age one cannot have a dissenting opinion on this issue i.e.: being against gay marriage without having your character assassinated by any number of people.
Have we really evolved so little that we can’t discuss this issue in the public sphere without name-calling and harassing? In Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal, I was very close to an activist against it, and several of my (former) friends said she was “like Hitler.”
Politics is a dirty business, and apparently if your stance isn’t the popular one… look out!
Just like on the playground in elementary school, if you disagree with the popular kids (media, or any number of celebrities), you will be laughed at, scorned, ridiculed, etc… In the United States we have the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately, though you may be free to say what you will, many times there are consequences other than the government throwing you in prison (which is what the First Amendment was written to protect us from). The most troubling thing to me in this “discussion” is the utter lack of civility; “If you’re against this, you’re a bigot!!!” I’m saddened that in this day and age one cannot have a dissenting opinion on this issue i.e.: being against gay marriage without having your character assassinated by any number of people.
Have we really evolved so little that we can’t discuss this issue in the public sphere without name-calling and harassing? In Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal, I was very close to an activist against it, and several of my (former) friends said she was “like Hitler.”
Politics is a dirty business, and apparently if your stance isn’t the popular one… look out!
J
johnnyjones
Guest
You can compare Sodom and Gomorrah to today in the sexual realm. That is the topic of this discussion, and unfortunately that hasn’t changed. It is either equal or worse. Jesus is always in the picture, Jesus is God. I don’t see "2 ends of the spectrum " . There is plenty “eye for an eye” stuff going on now, the difference is that it isn’t law.
But why stop at Sodom and Gomorrah? Thats why I brought up Romans, another clear teaching on the matter. If your saying this has nothing to do with the our nation and marriage, your right, but the topic of this thread is “Catholics are bigots?”, so why wouldn’t we use scripture to support a point. If it’s sinful, marriage is out, period. These scripture verses only show that Catholics are not bigoted.
You can read the bible in any way you want, your right. My point though is that sometimes folks read it like a story that needs to get finished. One verse alone can be poured over and pondered upon for days. So the “reading it cover to cover” scenario implies more of a "once through’ technique.
I didn’t mean to imply you need to read Romans for your own concerns about commiting the act. I just meant that many times everyone goes right to the OT and jumps on the “abomnation” verse and misses Romans. Thank you for a civil exchange.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
Yes, it absolutely was a different time, however, some things do not change based upon the time. God established marriage as being between a man and a woman. This has many benefits to society. Homosexual marriage does not provide these same benefits. Homosexual activity is opposed to the will of God, and no amount of political correctness will change that. We should not be bigoted against anyone, including homosexuals, however, we should never go against our beliefs either.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
I think that many of the replies on this forum are missing the true question, why must we state what we believe or phrase our arguments in a secular manner. Those that accuse us of being bigots are wrong, but no amount of debate or rephrasing of the debate is going to change their minds. They are convinced that this is a “right” that should be granted. We believe that it is morally wrong. These two views are not going to meet in the middle or come to an understanding. The government may or may not recognize homosexual unions. The Church will not, and the reason is that we believe it would be endorsing sinful behavior. What is wrong with saying that?
L
LaSalle
Guest
Sadly, I think you’ve hit the nail on its head. There really isn’t a good secular argument against gay ‘marriages’. It does really look like there is nothing we can do to stop this march towards Govts allowing gay ‘marriages’.
Jaypeeto4 is right as well; the reason why this is all happening is because, in general, society is losing the belief in God. As a result, EVERYTHING is relative. Morality becomes subjective. Sin all but disappears from the collective psyche.
Oh well … get ready to face more slurs and animosity. But chin up, fear not, we’re in good company - John 15:18 If the world hates you, you must realise that it hated me before it hated you.
S
snarflemike
Guest
This is so true, and it applies to so many other things as well. Brother marrying sister, why not? Worried about birth defects, no problem, abort. And soon we’ll have post-birth abortion to deal with all those problems they didn’t notice in utero. Father marrying daughter, no good secular reason why not. Multiple husbands or wives, no secular argument against. Communal marriages, no good argument. That’s all just the tip of the iceberg, and it’s a very large iceberg indeed.
L
LaSalle
Guest
Hahaha I like your enthusiasm.
And this is why Catholics aren’t biggots. We don’t discriminate in terms of whose sexual acts must be ordered towards procreation. **All **peoples sexual acts must be ordered toward procreation.
But I guess they’d probably say “Must? Who said that that should that be the case?”
They’d also probably say that sex was meant for bonding AND procreation. Who said anything about it being a package deal? It doesn’t HAVE to be for both objectives, it can be for either or both. Case in point - no one is going to deny couples who cannot conceive (because of age or medical impediment) from having sex. IF they are engaging in sex purely for bonding and pleasure purposes why can’t the gays?
So because we’ve put that ‘illogical’, arbitrary (doesn’t apply to barren couples) and unnecessary requirement in place (that it must be ordered towards procreation), we become bigots.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Next thing you know we’ll be eatting shellfish.
I love you guys but you can use the slippery slope argument to argue against anytihng.For instance something harmless such as interracial marraige (it’ll lead to cats and dogs shacking up or INSERT IMMORAL UNION HERE) afterall everyone is against STATED IMMORAL UNION, and if you don’t stand up against interracial marriage you are supporting STATED IMMORAL UNION
you can also use slippery slope to justify something more controversial such as child abuse: If we prosecute men who kill their children then we may be violating Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (states that you should stone a rebellious child) Well if we stray from scripture here then we are opening the door for more violations of the Holy Book. Next thing you know INSERT UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON IMMORAL ACTIVITY HERE.
and voila! slippery slopes all over the place.
IMO: Slippery Slopes just arnt very persuasive, we are better off harking on the Biological phenomena which take place when a man and woman have sex. The ways are bodies are literally built for one another is the most persuasive (secular) argument IMO.
L
LaSalle
Guest
I think the world still sees that incestual relationships can lead to defects, so I think that one will probably not catch on that strongly … but multiple husbands and wives … why that’s just a tiny stretch from the multiple girlfriends and boyfriends now anyway. Besides … with so many people already having multiple marriages and divorces; why limit it to one at a time?
C
Corki
Guest
It’s not bigotry to believe something because of our religious beliefs. That’s not the definition of bigotry. It would be bigotry if we believed that our teaching against homosexual acts only applied to some people.Hahaha I like your enthusiasm.
But I guess they’d probably say “Must? Who said that that should that be the case?”
They’d also probably say that sex was meant for bonding AND procreation. Who said anything about it being a package deal? It doesn’t HAVE to be for both objectives, it can be for either or both. Case in point - no one is going to deny couples who cannot conceive (because of age or medical impediment) from having sex. IF they are engaging in sex purely for bonding and pleasure purposes why can’t the gays?
So because we’ve put that ‘illogical’, arbitrary (doesn’t apply to barren couples) and unnecessary requirement in place (that it must be ordered towards procreation), we become bigots.
Now, as to your original point, why do we need a secular argument against same-sex marriage? Why is reasoning purely from morals not enough? That’s the only reasoning we have for most of our laws - against murder, theft, tax evasion, drug dealing, prostitution, etc.
M
mskejj
Guest
Romans 15:3 says, ] For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.
God does not change…it is we who move away from him. We cannot ignore the hard virtues of chastity and courage. In today’s world, we have become much better at practicing the softer virtues of compassion and love, but we cannot use them to make excuses to ignore the harder virtues. Several times in the bible it states the the unchaste (fornicators, homosexuals, adulterers etc) will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven. And that is the NEW TESTAMENT.
20 years ago the world was shocked when Murphy Brown had a child out of wedlock on TV. Now 48% of children are born out of wedlock. Society’s approval of sexual sin is a snowball which is picking up speed and growing faster and faster. If we don’t stop it, unfortunately…God will. He will not allow His Children to continue to lose their salvation based on what society “now” says is normal.
A
adrift
Guest
Seperation of Church and State is not what the constitution states. It was not the intention but it is what developed from those who wish to silence those of faith.
It is freedom OF religion not from. This is a perversion of what the constitution defined. This is an athiest promotion. You may want freedom from but the facts are that goes against the establishment clause of the constitution. What you seem to be saying is that atheism be made the state religion.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Which is turning out to be quite unpersuasive, isn’t it? And hey, isn’t gender reassignment surgery a right now as well? If not now then soon.Next thing you know we’ll be eatting shellfish.
For instance something harmless such as interracial marraige (it’ll lead to cats and dogs shacking up or INSERT IMMORAL UNION HERE) afterall everyone is against STATED IMMORAL UNION, and if you don’t stand up against interracial marriage you are supporting STATED IMMORAL UNION
you can also use slippery slope to justify something more controversial such as child abuse: If we prosecute men who kill their children then we may be violating Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (states that you should stone a rebellious child) Well if we stray from scripture here then we are opening the door for more violations of the Holy Book. Next thing you know INSERT UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON IMMORAL ACTIVITY HERE.
and voila! slippery slopes all over the place.
IMO: Slippery Slopes just arnt very persuasive, we are better off harking on the Biological phenomena which take place when a man and woman have sex. The ways are bodies are literally built for one another is the most persuasive (secular) argument IMO.
You can dismiss this all as slippery-slopism, but compare where we (the west) are, what we are allowing or considering allowing now, with how things were just one or two generations ago, and tell me you don’t see a snowball effect. The west, as it becomes more secular, seems to have lost the ability to argue against any claimed right. As soon as somebody claims (rightly or wrongly) “I want it, it’s my right, it’s only fair, nobody gets hurt” the west is defenseless and will yield sooner or later.
Right now there’s still a fairly strong instinct to protect children, but at the same time we are sexualizing them at younger and younger ages, so it’s only a matter of time before the legal age of consent drops below the teens.
- Status