Do you think that the church will ever accept gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hellopeople
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, [insert condescending name here], I’ll show you where you did what I accused you of doing. I’m going to post your original response here for ease of reference:
John21652 said:
Not sure how to answer this one Sugarmagnolia, without offending people. Let’s just say that what men do to one another during sex is, well, very repulsive and causes the imaginations of normal men to invent all sorts of jokes and one liners which homosexuals find ‘hurtful’. I have never come across any men who say “lesbians are hot; I want to watch them.” Anyway, if there are men who get a kick out of watching them, maybe it’s because they envy one of them! I really don’t know. The thing is, I’m not sure women can do to one another what men can do to one another, so perhaps the feelings of repulsiveness don’t arise in the same way.

Have you ever heard any of the stories of male rape in prisons? It is a very painful and repulsive method of gaining power and control over another. The repulsiveness of the act is part of the power move. So is the pain inflicted deliberately. A normal man feels totally repulsed and totally violated as a result. Outside prison, such an act is performed willingly by some men and they call it ‘love’. Yuk.
Click to expand...
Now I’ll go through the points I made. First, I said:
You seem to think that because men rape other men in prison, and that rape in those instances–as opposed to other instances, apparently–is vile and fueled by the need for dominance, then acts between males outside of prison and outside the constructs of rape must have the same connotation.
Click to expand...
I say “seem to” because what you’re doing here is implying that one act is like another act. By implying rather than saying outright that x = y, you allow yourself some wiggle room to backtrack. But I won’t let you. I will instead ask you a clarifying question. Why bring up the situation of prison rape at all if you don’t intend to show how prison rape is like consensual homosexual sex?

In the situation you bring up about prison sex, you say, “it is a very painful and repulsive method of gaining power and control over another.” This paragraph is about illustrating the similarities between prison sex and consensual homosexual sex, so therefore the details you choose to bring forth resonate with the reader as details that are applicable to both, unless otherwise stated. After all, why bring up the detail if it is not relevant? Because you enjoy typing?

I then wrote:
By replying the way I did, I wanted to illustrate that men rape women as well, and that following your logic, men and women having sex outside the constructs of rape must also be sullied by the connotations of rape.
Click to expand...
For some reason you take issue with this, but it’s unclear why. If you were aware of this obvious point–and you’re right, it’s very obvious–then why write what you wrote at all concerning prison rape and consensual homosexual sex?
 
To answer the original question, no I do not think the church will change it’s stance on gay marriage. The Catholic church does not need to catch up with society. Society is often wrong. The church already teaches it’s members to have compassion for homosexuals and to not discriminate against them.
 
Realist said:
Okay, [insert condescending name here], I’ll show you where you did what I accused you of doing. I’m going to post your original response here for ease of reference:

Now I’ll go through the points I made. First, I said:

I say “seem to” because what you’re doing here is implying that one act is like another act. By implying rather than saying outright that x = y, you allow yourself some wiggle room to backtrack. But I won’t let you. I will instead ask you a clarifying question. Why bring up the situation of prison rape at all if you don’t intend to show how prison rape is like consensual homosexual sex?

In the situation you bring up about prison sex, you say, “it is a very painful and repulsive method of gaining power and control over another.” This paragraph is about illustrating the similarities between prison sex and consensual homosexual sex, so therefore the details you choose to bring forth resonate with the reader as details that are applicable to both, unless otherwise stated. After all, why bring up the detail if it is not relevant? Because you enjoy typing?

I then wrote:

For some reason you take issue with this, but it’s unclear why. If you were aware of this obvious point–and you’re right, it’s very obvious–then why write what you wrote at all concerning prison rape and consensual homosexual sex?
Click to expand...
Your entire post is predicated upon assumptions and what you percieve as ‘implications’. If the implications were so obvious, you wouldn;t have to write “seem to”. This answer of yours is also dishonest, because you didn’t just write “seem to”. You actually wrote “You seem to think”. So, not only do you invent implications, but you alter sentences and ommit words and then base your argument on the changed connotations. What you actually wrote means you are so presumptuous as to suggest what I may or may not think according to what I didn’t write!

Now go and read the last two sentences of my post, which you re-posted so we all don’t have to back track, well done, and if you can’t take it as written and work out the point I was making, then, sorry, but you are a lost cause.
 
John21652 said:
Not sure how to answer this one Sugarmagnolia, without offending people. Let’s just say that what men do to one another during sex is, well, very repulsive and causes the imaginations of normal men to invent all sorts of jokes and one liners which homosexuals find ‘hurtful’. I have never come across any men who say “lesbians are hot; I want to watch them.” Anyway, if there are men who get a kick out of watching them, maybe it’s because they envy one of them! I really don’t know. The thing is, I’m not sure women can do to one another what men can do to one another, so perhaps the feelings of repulsiveness don’t arise in the same way.

Have you ever heard any of the stories of male rape in prisons? It is a very painful and repulsive method of gaining power and control over another. The repulsiveness of the act is part of the power move. So is the pain inflicted deliberately. A normal man feels totally repulsed and totally violated as a result. Outside prison, such an act is performed willingly by some men and they call it ‘love’. Yuk.
Click to expand...
Well said:thumbsup:👍
 
I will be joining the Church this year at the Easter Vigil. Not many more days left. I will say that if the Catholic Church EVER accepts homosexual marriages as sacramental, I will leave the very minute that its proclaimed to be accepted. I would hate that terribly.
 
dnar said:
I will be joining the Church this year at the Easter Vigil. Not many more days left. I will say that if the Catholic Church EVER accepts homosexual marriages as sacramental, I will leave the very minute that its proclaimed to be accepted. I would hate that terribly.
Click to expand...
Rest assured that acceptance of homosexual unions by the Church will never ever happen.
 
John21652 said:
Your entire post is predicated upon assumptions and what you percieve as ‘implications’. If the implications were so obvious, you wouldn;t have to write “seem to”. This answer of yours is also dishonest, because you didn’t just write “seem to”. You actually wrote “You seem to think”. So, not only do you invent implications, but you alter sentences and ommit words and then base your argument on the changed connotations. What you actually wrote means you are so presumptuous as to suggest what I may or may not think according to what I didn’t write!

Now go and read the last two sentences of my post, which you re-posted so we all don’t have to back track, well done, and if you can’t take it as written and work out the point I was making, then, sorry, but you are a lost cause.
Click to expand...
You’re really stretching to protect yourself here, aren’t you? When I write out of my element, which is fiction, I tend to add a lot of qualifiers like “seem to” and so forth. It’s a bad habit. Your bad habit, apparently–see, there I go again—, is not specifically addressing people’s concerns. I manned up and addressed exactly what you asked me to address. I did this because I was confident in my perspective and in my ability to strengthen my argument. When I asked you to do the same, you backed down. Why?

Instead, you criticize a previous post you already criticized in exactly the same way. Solid, buddy. Now, if you have some confidence, you might answer the simple question I posed: if you weren’t trying to draw a clear parallel between prison rape and consensual homosexual sex, why did you write about them both in the same paragraph and link them in such a distinct way?

If you think the answer to that question is painfully obvious, please indulge me–I’m just an ignorant secular fool, intellectually confused by my indoctrination by evil universities–and fill me in.
 
Realist said:
You’re really stretching to protect yourself here, aren’t you? When I write out of my element, which is fiction, I tend to add a lot of qualifiers like “seem to” and so forth. It’s a bad habit. Your bad habit, apparently–see, there I go again—, is not specifically addressing people’s concerns. I manned up and addressed exactly what you asked me to address. I did this because I was confident in my perspective and in my ability to strengthen my argument. When I asked you to do the same, you backed down. Why?

Instead, you criticize a previous post you already criticized in exactly the same way. Solid, buddy. Now, if you have some confidence, you might answer the simple question I posed: if you weren’t trying to draw a clear parallel between prison rape and consensual homosexual sex, why did you write about them both in the same paragraph and link them in such a distinct way?

If you think the answer to that question is painfully obvious, please indulge me–I’m just an ignorant secular fool, intellectually confused by my indoctrination by evil universities–and fill me in.
Click to expand...
I’m just an ignorant secular fool, intellectually confused
Click to expand...
There you go again. Stating the obvious. 😃
 
Lycorth said:
Indeed. The Church will never accept this perversion.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right, Lycorth. The Catholic Church will never accept homosexual marriage. They’ve taken a distinct position on the issue. I wanted to respond to this because I think my position is getting muddled by people in this thread.

I don’t really care if the Catholic Church continues to keep down gays. In fact, it makes sense that they will. Catholics believe in the infallibility of a text that discriminates against homosexuals. Any good Catholic will follow that text and regard gay marriage a sin. That’s how it goes.

What perturbs me is when people take the sin argument a giant step further and say that the result of gay marriage and secular acceptance of homosexuals will lead to the actual destruction of our society. I completely understand if Catholics believe acceptance of homosexuals will lead to a society they’re unhappy with, but, come on, the implosion of the United States of America? That’s where the argument falls apart. All I ask is that if someone wants to make this argument, that they try to prove it.
 
For any on his/her own ‘quest’ journey, this reminder:

CONDUCT RULES for CA

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.

Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.

Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.

Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).

Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
 
dnar said:
I pray that you are correct.

:signofcross:
Click to expand...
I doubt a lot of gays are really fretting over the Catholic Church not blessing their unions, which look to be on the verge of legalization across the US. But I wonder about those who are actually fretting over the Catholic Church’s position. What draws them to the church in the first place? I’m not trying to be facetious. I’m looking for real insight here.
 
hellopeople said:
To be honest, with the way society is going, I think they will eventually accept gay marriage. The new generation is taught that everyone is equal including different races, sexes, and people of different sexualities. This is the message that is being taught to our young, and before long the church is going to lose significant numbers of people if they don’t change their views. Even now, the church gets a bad rap for being anti-homosexual. In 20 years it will be much worse. I predict that the church will keep their teachings on abortion, but will ease up on gay marriage. I believe that within the next 25 years, the church will, at the least, stop their fight against same sex marriage at a secular and government level.
Click to expand...
The Church will not change. It’s kind of the point of the Church, and orthodoxy. Being unaffected by moral relativism and modernism. If the Church only has one Priest and one parishoner when Jesus returns, it will still be the Church, and will have withstood the gates of hell.

You may be surprised to learn though, that orthodoxy is the new anarchy. The priests coming through seminary right now are on fire for the Lord and liturgy in a quite orthodox manner. The Church is going to be just fine, though perhaps a little leaner, and more persecuted in the western world. Nope. Regardless of “today’s society”, no gay marriage or abortion are going to seep into the doctrines.
 
Realist said:
I think you’re right, Lycorth. The Catholic Church will never accept homosexual marriage. They’ve taken a distinct position on the issue. I wanted to respond to this because I think my position is getting muddled by people in this thread.

I don’t really care if the Catholic Church continues to keep down gays. In fact, it makes sense that they will. Catholics believe in the infallibility of a text that discriminates against homosexuals. Any good Catholic will follow that text and regard gay marriage a sin. That’s how it goes.

What perturbs me is when people take the sin argument a giant step further and say that the result of gay marriage and secular acceptance of homosexuals will lead to the actual destruction of our society. I completely understand if Catholics believe acceptance of homosexuals will lead to a society they’re unhappy with, but, come on, the implosion of the United States of America? That’s where the argument falls apart. All I ask is that if someone wants to make this argument, that they try to prove it.
Click to expand...
Civilizational collapse, its history and future, is really too big a subject to be dealt with in an Internet forum.
(I might even argue that the decline of real research and the decline of the average attention span, could be partially attributed to the Internet itself, but that’s a subject for a future historian.)

Homosexual marriage is only the latest, not the worst, of the attacks on the institution of marriage in the current culture. In this I agree with Orson Scott Card, whose essay on the matter can be found here. I recommend the essay, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

I grew up in a somewhat less perverse mileu both for marriage and society, but the rapidity of change for the worse has been remarkable and deadly.

I would like to think that my increasingly dystopian views can be attributed merely to age and crotchetiness, but I fear that my perceptions are real. One can hope of course. No civilization likes to think of itself as in the process of decline. But the process, once begun, can play out pretty rapidly.
 
JimG said:
Civilizational collapse, its history and future, is really too big a subject to be dealt with in an Internet forum.
(I might even argue that the decline of real research and the decline of the average attention span, could be partially attributed to the Internet itself, but that’s a subject for a future historian.)

Homosexual marriage is only the latest, not the worst, of the attacks on the institution of marriage in the current culture. In this I agree with Orson Scott Card, whose essay on the matter can be found here. I recommend the essay, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

I grew up in a somewhat less perverse mileu both for marriage and society, but the rapidity of change for the worse has been remarkable and deadly.

I would like to think that my increasingly dystopian views can be attributed merely to age and crotchetiness, but I fear that my perceptions are real. One can hope of course. No civilization likes to think of itself as in the process of decline. But the process, once begun, can play out pretty rapidly.
Click to expand...
This is one of the first responses I’ve seen on this subject that didn’t make me cringe. Thanks for being thoughtful, Jim. I’m going to read the essay.
 
Read the essay, Jim. I have to say I disagree with nearly all of it, but I’m glad I read it. It allows me to better understand the mindset of people opposing gay marriage. As an instructor, I would say the essay makes a lot of false connections to prove an untenable thesis. A massive portion of the essay is devoted to the breakdown of the family as seen through increased divorce rates. But the thesis is about how gay marriage is destroying families and therefore our society. Someone who already agrees with the author’s point will no doubt assume a clear connection between divorce rates and gay marriage, but those of us who aren’t yet on board are left baffled. The two appear entirely unrelated. In a better essay, the author would have addressed his naysayer in this moment and made clear the connection he was trying to draw between the two disparate subjects. Because the author made no such attempt, the essay is left with an air of preaching-to-the-choir. And what’s the point of that?

Edit: I think there’s a lot to say about the essay you provided, Jim. I don’t mean to be overly reductive by focusing my critique on only certain portions. I just didn’t feel it would be helpful or worth my time to offer point-by-point analyses of everything contained within it.
 
JimG said:
Civilizational collapse, its history and future, is really too big a subject to be dealt with in an Internet forum.
(I might even argue that the decline of real research and the decline of the average attention span, could be partially attributed to the Internet itself, but that’s a subject for a future historian.)

Homosexual marriage is only the latest, not the worst, of the attacks on the institution of marriage in the current culture. In this I agree with Orson Scott Card, whose essay on the matter can be found here. I recommend the essay, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

I grew up in a somewhat less perverse mileu both for marriage and society, but the rapidity of change for the worse has been remarkable and deadly.

I would like to think that my increasingly dystopian views can be attributed merely to age and crotchetiness, but I fear that my perceptions are real. One can hope of course. No civilization likes to think of itself as in the process of decline. But the process, once begun, can play out pretty rapidly.
Click to expand...
The article you linked to, by Orson Scott Card, is very perceptive in its analysis of the ramifications of the loosening of what we term ‘moral values’. My country is probably quite a bit further ‘advanced’ in its adoption of the so called ‘new morality’, with its anti-discrimination, equal opportunity legislation and with its adoption of a more liberal ‘tolerance’ of those who are ‘different’. The result is a very obvious decline in the structure of society and a lossening of the bonds which tie people together.

The institution of marriage has taken a hammering, as it has done in the US. Child rearing is far more institutionalised than it was a generation or two ago and the results are now becoming obvious. Commentators from both sides of the debate, that is the progressives and the conservatives, are now expressing dismay at what has been unleashed. Take this example, written by a journalist who has always expressed support for non-discriminatory, progressive social movements. He is a long time self confessed atheist, yet he is now beginning to support the traditional Judeo-Christian morality for the cohesive social effects and stability it has given us over countless generations. He cannot understand, or fathom, why some attack the very foundations of our society and label those foundations as the cause of todays problems. In the article I have linked to, he writes of just one example of the current generation, which seems to be spiralling out of control, and which has allegiances to no-one. It is a result, he writes of “… these no-responsibility times of breed ‘em and leave. Of broken promises of ‘til death us do part”. Violence and respect for no-one seems to be on the increase. It is not a pretty picture and sobering reading
 
Realist said:
I doubt a lot of gays are really fretting over the Catholic Church not blessing their unions, which look to be on the verge of legalization across the US. But I wonder about those who are actually fretting over the Catholic Church’s position. What draws them to the church in the first place? I’m not trying to be facetious. I’m looking for real insight here.
Click to expand...
You have asked a very valid question; most non-heterosexual people stay out of the Catholic Church; instead they turn to other Christian Churches, Buddhism, Hinduism or other non-Abrahamic religions. Or, some are Atheist. As I see it, there are only two answers for the few (and we are talking about very few people), who step inside a Catholic Church:
  1. They want to be part of the Catholic Church so that they can destroy her from within
What do you think the second reason might be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top