Catholics cannot accept gay marriage, pope says

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Benedict said on Saturday the Catholic Church could not accept gay marriage and urged young people to root out evil in society and shun a “lukewarm” faith that damages their Church.

The 84-year-old pope ended the third day in his homeland with a rally for more about 30,000 young people at a fairground outside the southern city of Freiburg, a Catholic area where he received the warmest welcome of his trip so far.

“The world in which we live, in spite of its technical progress, does not seem to be getting any better,” he told the young people. “There is still war and terror, hunger and disease, bitter poverty and merciless oppression.”

He urged them to root out all forms of evil in society and not to be “lukewarm Christians,” saying that lack of commitment to faith did more damage to their Church than its sworn enemies.

Earlier, at a meeting with Orthodox Christian leaders, Benedict spoke out against abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage.

“We as Christians attach great importance to defending the integrity and the uniqueness of marriage between one man and one woman from any kind of misinterpretation,” he said.

af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE78N1NT20110924?sp=true

 

[James1215]

What if the essence of marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples? A union is about more than the flesh, and gay couples can be just as loving as any. It seems like there’s no point reiterating “No to gay marriage!” without also consulting the theology to sustain the statement.

 

[babylonsfalling]

What if the essence of marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples? **A union is about more than the flesh, and gay couples can be just as loving as any. **<—Same old tripe The same thing could be said about a 19 year old kid marrying his 50 year old mother. It seems like there’s no point reiterating “No to gay marriage!” without also consulting the theology to sustain the statement.

Consult the theology?
You apparently don’t GET the point yourself, it’s the Bible that condemns homosexuality so the notion of “consulting the theology” is not even

 

[James1215]

Consult the theology?
You apparently don’t GET the point yourself, it’s the Bible that condemns homosexuality so the notion of “consulting the theology” is not even

You’d be interested to learn more about the Bible’s relevant passages then:

religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm

 

[jsaldar]

I agree 100% with the Pope.

 

[babylonsfalling]

You’d be interested to learn more about the Bible’s relevant passages then:

religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm

DIS-interpreting Scripture is an old worn out, and easily recognizable trick. Christians know the Bible condemns homosexuality.

 

[James1215]

And another point springs to mind, which is the role of genes in sexuality. If one accepts that genes cause the desire, that these genes evolved from milennia ago (before any kind of Fall), and that God was responsible for evolution, God had a place for gay people in His designs.

Consent, non-consanguinity, proximity of age, monogamy and various other factors are at play in hetero relationships deemed good. These could be the same for their opposites in the gay camp, and the result is close, loving unions arising out of a natural desire. As I said, the theology ought to be closely interpreted, because it is more difficult to maintain that close gay relationships are sinful than the opposite.

Yes straight unions can produce children, but they do not subsist on producing children, and nor do all healthy relationships require the interaction of male and female genitalia. Equal but different respect for close gay unions is due I think.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I agree 100% with the Pope.

Greetings Jsaldar,

Me too.

Greetings to the OP,

It is so encouraging to see the Pope take a stand, and a definitive one. Thanks for posting this.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[James1215]

DIS-interpreting Scripture is an old worn out, and easily recognizable trick. Christians know the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Actually, I don’t think you know it. It may very easily not be true and I do not think you could defend your take.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

What if the essence of marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples? A union is about more than the flesh, and gay couples can be just as loving as any. It seems like there’s no point reiterating “No to gay marriage!” without also consulting the theology to sustain the statement.

Greetings James1215,

The Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church has always been clear on this matter.

Homosexual marriages are not to be accepted. Homosexual behavior is condemned and is a sin. Notice I said behavior and not the person who does the behavior.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[James1215]

Greetings James1215,

The Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church has always been clear on this matter.

Homosexual marriages are not to be accepted. Homosexual behavior is condemned and is a sin. Notice I said behavior and not the person who does the behavior.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

It may be very clear, and it may be very mistaken.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Actually, I don’t think you know it. It may very easily not be true and I do not think you could defend your take.

It’s very clearly true, no matter how many silly pro homosexual links you put up to sites that DIS-interpret the Bible. When you do that all you really accomplish is to show people that you’ve abandoned all hope in using honest interpretations. People know immediately that you aren’t going to engage them honestly and you end up with less respect than people who would incorrectly but honestly say “I just disagree with the Bible”…at least those types have enough respect for their word to speak honestly.

 

[JRRTFAN]

What if the essence of marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples? A union is about more than the flesh, and gay couples can be just as loving as any. It seems like there’s no point reiterating “No to gay marriage!” without also consulting the theology to sustain the statement.

Marriage is a basic unit of society legalized and promulgated for the creation of family units dedicated to the continuation of the race. Homosexual unions can not propagate therefore they can not be marriages. A rolling pin can not be a feather duster A tree can not be a bicycle.

If you guys want civil partnerships with joint and several property ownership, rights of survivorship, so be it, but call it something else.

What you guys want is not marriage, you want legal status to further and ostensibly legitimize the homosexual agenda.

Whenever homosexual unions are pushed we are greeted the propaganda with 2 well coifed, life committed persons with an adopted child or 2 and a dog in the suburbs. The real story comes out in the celebrations, take a look at photos of the parade in New York celebrating legalisation of un-natural acts. There you see the real McCoy.

I have relatives who say: “They’re born that way” “They can’t help it.” OK, I’ll grant you that.

Are they forced to parade down Folsom Street in a black leather vest, with chaps and an athletic supporter? What you guys want is “in your face” deviance approved, indeed favored, by the govenrment.

 

[SpeakInSilence]

And another point springs to mind, which is the role of genes in sexuality. If one accepts that genes cause the desire, that these genes evolved from milennia ago (before any kind of Fall), and that God was responsible for evolution, God had a place for gay people in His designs.

Consent, non-consanguinity, proximity of age, monogamy and various other factors are at play in hetero relationships deemed good. These could be the same for their opposites in the gay camp, and the result is close, loving unions arising out of a natural desire. As I said, the theology ought to be closely interpreted, because it is more difficult to maintain that close gay relationships are sinful than the opposite.

Yes straight unions can produce children, but they do not subsist on producing children, and nor do all healthy relationships require the interaction of male and female genitalia. Equal but different respect for close gay unions is due I think.

There is NO evidence at all that there is a gene that causes homosexual desires, there is plenty of evidence that claims that homosexuality was considered a disorder by the DVM and the APA until gay lobbyist forced change. Homosexuality is a sin of the flesh. How does one identify themselves as a homosexual? Because their sexual desires for something that is like themselves, pride and lust.

 

[James1215]

Marriage is a basic unit of society legalized and promulgated for the creation of family units dedicated to the continuation of the race. Homosexual unions can not propagate therefore they can not be marriages. A rolling pin can not be a feather duster A tree can not be a bicycle.

If you guys want civil partnerships with joint and several property ownership, rights of survivorship, so be it, but call it something else.

What you guys want is not marriage, you want legal status to further and ostensibly legitimize the homosexual agenda.

Whenever homosexual unions are pushed we are greeted the propaganda with 2 well coifed, life committed persons with an adopted child or 2 and a dog in the suburbs. The real story comes out in the celebrations, take a look at photos of the parade in New York celebrating legalisation of un-natural acts. There you see the real McCoy.

I have relatives who say: “They’re born that way” “They can’t help it.” OK, I’ll grant you that.

Are they forced to parade down Folsom Street in a black leather vest, with chaps and an athletic supporter? What you guys want is “in your face” deviance approved, indeed favored, by the govenrment.

You’re generalising a tad; I’m straight. If ‘marriage’ is a state-legitimised thing for the maintenance of the human race (not that the state actually cares, viz global warming), then so be it. However, we both know that’s nothing more than a comforting story we imagine in our less secure moments.

In any case, the state also has a role to represent the people, and it is a very basic idea to respect close gay unions equally in society. Equal but differentiated treatment of gay and straight. This has a lot of theological support.

 

[tabbey48]

I agree 100% with the Pope.

Me too!!!

 

[Dale_M]

What if the essence of marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples? A union is about more than the flesh, and gay couples can be just as loving as any. It seems like there’s no point reiterating “No to gay marriage!” without also consulting the theology to sustain the statement.

Yes, I suppose so. However, according to Catholic theology marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. It unites persons who have equal but complementary natures. In marriage, persons achieve a wholeness they otherwise lack because whether a man without a woman, or a woman without a man, that person is incomplete.

Same-sex marriage, according to Catholic theology, is a distortion of real marriage because it does not unite two persons with different natures.

 

[James1215]

There is NO evidence at all that there is a gene that causes homosexual desires, there is plenty of evidence that claims that homosexuality was considered a disorder by the DVM and the APA until gay lobbyist forced change. Homosexuality is a sin of the flesh. How does one identify themselves as a homosexual? Because their sexual desires for something that is like themselves, pride and lust.

There is evidence that genetics influence sexuality. Genes influencing homosexuality are linked to a genetic factor that increases female fertility - they are adaptive in evolutionary terms. If God started evolution, God designed gay people. It’s a shame they didn’t have this insight when they wrote the Bible, as we all know that the Church accepts evolution now.

Whether the sexuality is characterised as pathological or not says nothing about its cause nor its religious status.

 

[James1215]

Yes, I suppose so. However, according to Catholic theology marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. It unites persons who have equal but complementary natures. In marriage, persons achieve a wholeness they otherwise lack because whether a man without a woman, or a woman without a man, that person is incomplete.

Same-sex marriage, according to Catholic theology is a distortion of real marriage because it does not unite two persons with different natures.

I’m almost with you, but for two differences.

There could be two types of union- straight/gay without gay sex being sinful

Straight marriage is not all about procreation anyway.

Actually I have a third issue, which is that wholeness is not related to one’s gender.

 

[rlg94086]

And another point springs to mind, which is the role of genes in sexuality. If one accepts that genes cause the desire, that these genes evolved from milennia ago (before any kind of Fall), and that God was responsible for evolution, God had a place for gay people in His designs.

Consent, non-consanguinity, proximity of age, monogamy and various other factors are at play in hetero relationships deemed good. These could be the same for their opposites in the gay camp, and the result is close, loving unions arising out of a natural desire. As I said, the theology ought to be closely interpreted, because it is more difficult to maintain that close gay relationships are sinful than the opposite.

Yes straight unions can produce children, but they do not subsist on producing children, and nor do all healthy relationships require the interaction of male and female genitalia. Equal but different respect for close gay unions is due I think.

If there is a “gay gene,” it’s a genetic defect that can be repaired. It has no bearing on the sinfulness of homosexual acts. It would be similar to excusing a thief due to kleptomania or a murderer because they have a “hate gene.”

Gay unions are an abomination.