Church fights same-sex 'marriage' in Spain

[katherine2]

Brad:

My goodness. Please stop ignoring key words. I said the laws “attempt” to make the best of a bad situation - not that the laws are effective nor that divorce itself is good.

I guess some would make the same agruement about gay marriage. I don’t see that, but that would be a poltiical discussion with moral aspects, but not an article of faith.

Secondly, the do not grant special benefit. They potentially require payments to support a spouse or children but this is not a benefit as much as an obligation. If I am missing some special benefit - please tell me rather than generalizing just to disagree.

It grants a party the unnatural right to desert his family (and civilly remarry) in exchange for a certain and often inadequete level of financial support to them.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

Amen.

and alleuia!!

And we should always oppose abusive state laws and actions.

Hence the claim that one is preventing more sin and scandal and keeping other souls safe does not give one a blank check to persue any forced action.

Careful Katherine - you are bordering on Christian fellowship.

it is Christmastide!!

 

[katherine2]

fix:

I can see why some make the argument that homosexual unions are no worse than the current stae of marraige in our society.

Exactly my point. I do not advocate gay marriages, but I can see why others are indifferent on this matter and therefore don’t accuse them of being bad Catholics.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

Exactly my point. I do not advocate gay marriages, but I can see why others are indifferent on this matter and therefore don’t accuse them of being bad Catholics.

There is no such thing as a “bad” Catholic.
You either believe what the Church teaches entirely and are a Catholic, or not believe what the Church teaches entirely and are not a Catholic.

 

[katherine2]

Trelow:

There is no such thing as a “bad” Catholic.
You either believe what the Church teaches entirely and are a Catholic, or not believe what the Church teaches entirely and are not a Catholic.

I totally agree.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

I totally agree.

More things for us to agree on each and every day.

 

[fix]

Werner:

I agree on that

I strongly disagree with that. First it is nothing the “everybody knows” and there is nothing such like a “natural law” that is the same for everybody, in fact everybody sees something else as the “natural law”
And no civil law “needs” to reflect a religious law. That leads into a theocracy and will re-light the stakes.

Werner

Everyone knows homosexual acts are disordered. Some do not not know it becuase they are dulled due to being in a sinful state themselves.

Civil laws that are legitimate all come from God. Laws against rape come from religious laws. Are they bad?

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Exactly my point. I do not advocate gay marriages, but I can see why others are indifferent on this matter and therefore don’t accuse them of being bad Catholics.

I was making the point that I can see how some come to that conclusion, not that the conclusion was just or reasoned.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Civil laws that are legitimate all come from God. Laws against rape come from religious laws. Are they bad?

Does Social Security come from God or is it an illegitmate law?

 

[Fiat]

Hi Katherine2:

I hope you are enjoying a peaceful Christmas season!

I would imagine that the concept motivating Social Security finds its roots in the natural law and in Christian notions of charity and loving your neighbor; however obviously the Social Securitiy System isn’t sanctioned or governed by Holy Mother Church. I’m wondering what difference it makes? At issue seems to be whether or not Spanish Bishops have a right to speak out against same-sex marriage. Certainly that civil right is granted to them. Likewise, as Shepherds of the Flock, they have an obligation to speak the Truths of the Church.

If a Catholic is indifferent about whether same-sex marriage is legalized, so be it. If a Catholic wishes to exercise his civil right to engage in public discourse about it, so be it.

Your brother,
Fiat

 

[ToddC]

Werner:

It is a right to do in the privacy of your home whatever doesn’t harm anybody.

There are people out there who think the Eucharist is a perversion, let them think it, but is our right to celebrate it anyway.

So everybody who thinks homosexuality is a perversion should abstain from it, but has no right to urge his view on others who have a different view.

And if two homosexual people want to register at the town hall, i say again, so what!

Nobody who believes it is a perversion needs to do so!

And as for the adoption of kids: Each and every couple has to be an will be examinated if they are capable to rise and educate kids. If they are why should they be denied that right? Just because some think they are “perverted”?

Then nobody could be allowed to adopt children

Werner

Here is a perfect example of relativist logic.

Werner, we have to be clear about the differences between Rights and Freedoms. People do not have a right to act immorally. People are Free to act immorally. Rights deal with what is allowed by Law, whether civil/criminal or Natural Law. Freedom deals with what a person is allowed to do. There is a big difference between the two. So using one of your examples above…
We are free to celebrate the Eucharist but not any way we wish; we have the Canon Law to guide us. Therefore; we don’t have a right to celebrate the Euacharist any way we wish but are free to celebrate it.

Since homosexual acts are against the natural order (law), no one has a right to behave in such a manner. The natural order is supposed to be the foundation of the laws of society, and if we ignore that fact, we risk the breakdown of society.

That’s what.

I hope this helps. God Bless.

 

[ToddC]

Werner:

It is a right to do in the privacy of your home whatever doesn’t harm anybody.

There are people out there who think the Eucharist is a perversion, let them think it, but is our right to celebrate it anyway.

So everybody who thinks homosexuality is a perversion should abstain from it, but has no right to urge his view on others who have a different view.

And if two homosexual people want to register at the town hall, i say again, so what!

Nobody who believes it is a perversion needs to do so!

And as for the adoption of kids: Each and every couple has to be an will be examinated if they are capable to rise and educate kids. If they are why should they be denied that right? Just because some think they are “perverted”?

Then nobody could be allowed to adopt children

Werner

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Does Social Security come from God or is it an illegitmate law?

I have not heard it is unjust. Laws allowing abortion, or slavery would be unjust. Do you think the state has rights exclusive from God? Allowing homosexuals to pretend to be married is not from God.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Do you think the state has rights exclusive from God? Allowing homosexuals to pretend to be married is not from God.

Is allowing heterosexuals to pretend to be married from God, as we have with civil divorce and remarriage?

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Hi Katherine2:

I hope you are enjoying a peaceful Christmas season!

I would imagine that the concept motivating Social Security finds its roots in the natural law and in Christian notions of charity and loving your neighbor; however obviously the Social Securitiy System isn’t sanctioned or governed by Holy Mother Church. I’m wondering what difference it makes? At issue seems to be whether or not Spanish Bishops have a right to speak out against same-sex marriage. Certainly that civil right is granted to them. Likewise, as Shepherds of the Flock, they have an obligation to speak the Truths of the Church.

If a Catholic is indifferent about whether same-sex marriage is legalized, so be it. If a Catholic wishes to exercise his civil right to engage in public discourse about it, so be it.

Your brother,
Fiat

Dear Fiat,

I wholely concurr with your most temperate and balanced statement.

The only reason I raised Social Security was Fix’s claim that “Civil laws that are legitimate all come from God.”. I think there is a third animal out there of laws that are legitimate but not of divine decree. I think Aquinis agrees with me.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Dear Fiat,

I wholely concurr with your most temperate and balanced statement.

The only reason I raised Social Security was Fix’s claim that “Civil laws that are legitimate all come from God.”. I think there is a third animal out there of laws that are legitimate but not of divine decree. I think Aquinis agrees with me.

The authority of the state to rule and regulate does come from God. Do you disagree?

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Is allowing heterosexuals to pretend to be married from God, as we have with civil divorce and remarriage?

I never said illegitimate laws come from God, did I?

 

[Fiat]

Hi Fix:

You stated:

The authority of the state to rule and regulate does come from God. Do you disagree?

I think I would have to disagree, although I may not be fully understanding your statement here. Ultimately, all the governments of the world are subject to God. However, I think that worldly governments have usurped their authority for ruling and regulating from Holy Mother Church. Basically, I think worldly governments create fictions for themselves, pretending that their authority is proper.

Your brother,
Fiat

 

[fix]

Fiat:

Hi Fix:

You stated:
I think I would have to disagree, although I may not be fully understanding your statement here. Ultimately, all the governments of the world are subject to God. However, I think that worldly governments have usurped their authority for ruling and regulating from Holy Mother Church. In essence, I think worldly governments create fictions for themselves, pretending that their authority is proper.

Your brother,
Fiat

That may be true in many cases, but do you think God does not “loan” His authority to legitimate governments just as He “loans” it to parents?

This debate has been about laws. My contention is that all human laws are based on natural law. We can’t have laws that contradict natural law such as the abortion laws we have today.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

It grants a party the unnatural right to desert his family (and civilly remarry) in exchange for a certain and often inadequete level of financial support to them.

I completely agree with the immorality that you are suggesting here. I just don’t see it as a “right” to do something harmful. The deserter might think he’s got it good but he doesn’t - and the state is not giving him financial advantages or any tangible benefit as would be perceived with same-sex “marriages”.