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

[mary1173]

Yes…also consider that the previous (and verified) record is 67…13 years younger than this unconfirmed one.

Either way, once a woman has gone through menopause it is biologically impossible for her to have a baby.

That’s why it was considered a miracle that Sarah and Abraham were able to conceve a child. Until you choose to believe you won’t. It’s as simple as that. God did work miracles in the lives of His people. It is up to us as to if we choose to believe or refuse to believe these things. The Bible is based in fact. Not fiction. You either believe it or you don’t. It’s up to you to choose whether or not you want to accept the Bible OT as well as NT as fact of word and deed by God’s people.

 

[Langdell]

I just want to address this one statement in the OP:

Even now, the church gets a bad rap for being anti-homosexual.

The Church is not anti-homosexual. She is anti-homosexual acts and anti- the encouragement of such acts. Simply being attracted to people of the same sex is not, in and of itself, sinful.

.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

so let me get this straight, you support an active gay lifestyle? you know the sex part clearly Catholic teaching/catechism does not, are you in opposition to the Holy see?

Are you illiterate?! Have someone read my post to you.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I was not arguing, I was informing you and the OP, and another poster of catholic teaching If you have arguments with the Church take it up with the Church. Before you do you may want to understand that “oriented toward children” means just that. Whether pregnancy results is not the issue, whether the marriage achieves the requirement necessary to do that is a different thing. The church teaches that an act of relations( or coitus if you like ) is a requirement of marriage, and without it an annulment remains a standing option.

Well, the wording of the teaching is going to have the opposite effect that the church wants it to have. All this emphasis on procreation is going to strengthen the gay agenda, not weaken it. It’s so obvious that I don’t know why people don’t see it. Maybe people are so busy spouting slogans that they don’t think anymore. Look at stcalixtus’ post to me. Here I write something opposed to gay marriage and he reads it as being pro-gay.

I can’t make this any clearer: By putting non-procreative coitus in the same category as whatever it is homosexuals do to each other, the church alienates large numbers of heterosexuals which will only make those heterosexuals side with the gays.

Furthermore, claiming that an eighty year old woman or a woman who’s had a hysterectomy or any other 100% infertile person can have coitus that is “open to children” is nonsense. The only way to oppose gay marriage on grounds that will convince non-Catholics and even most Catholics with moderate views is to emphasize the necessaity of sexual complementarity, not procreation. Because the people on this forum can dig around in the National Inquirer all they want to for stories with titles like “Woman Without Uterus Gets Pregnant” but no one could possibly believe that inferile sex is “open to children.” Emphasize coitus. Homosexuals cannot have coitus. Don’t emphasize “openness to children” because the only way a 100% infertile heterosexual can be “open to life” is by playing make-believe and the gays can make-believe they’re trying to impregnate each other too.

They either want to win this or they want to enjoy listening to themselves talk. It looks like it’s the latter. And the result is going to be gay marriage.

 

[stcalixtus]

Are you illiterate?! Have someone read my post to you.

no, but I did get you confused with the protestant I was sparring with,I am sorry can you forgive for being an idiot?

 

[stcalixtus]

Well, the wording of the teaching is going to have the opposite effect that the church wants it to have. All this emphasis on procreation is going to strengthen the gay agenda, not weaken it. It’s so obvious that I don’t know why people don’t see it. Maybe people are so busy spouting slogans that they don’t think anymore. Look at stcalixtus’ post to me. Here I write something opposed to gay marriage and he reads it as being pro-gay.

I can’t make this any clearer: By putting non-procreative coitus in the same category as whatever it is homosexuals do to each other, the church alienates large numbers of heterosexuals which will only make those heterosexuals side with the gays.

Furthermore, claiming that an eighty year old woman or a woman who’s had a hysterectomy or any other 100% infertile person can have coitus that is “open to children” is nonsense. The only way to oppose gay marriage on grounds that will convince non-Catholics and even most Catholics with moderate views is to emphasize the necessaity of sexual complementarity, not procreation. Because the people on this forum can dig around in the National Inquirer all they want to for stories with titles like “Woman Without Uterus Gets Pregnant” but no one could possibly believe that inferile sex is “open to children.” Emphasize coitus. Homosexuals cannot have coitus. Don’t emphasize “openness to children” because the only way a 100% infertile heterosexual can be “open to life” is by playing make-believe and the gays can make-believe they’re trying to impregnate each other too.

They either want to win this or they want to enjoy listening to themselves talk. It looks like it’s the latter. And the result is going to be gay marriage.

many heterosexuals are going to are going to side with gays even if your approach were to be implemented, you can clearly see that hedonism rules the day and we are heading the way of the euro attitude…most have detached from God over there.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The answer to the OP’s question is “No”. Not Christ’s Church – The Catholic Chuch. It isn’t a matter of “acceptance”. It never was and never will be. The explanation is: Matrimony is a sacrament. Sacraments are are graces bestowed by Christ. Christ is Truth. Sacraments are what they are and people cannot change them – not even the Pope (and certainly not lawyers). People have the free will to try but that doesn’t make it so – no matter how hard, how often or how long they try.

Those who try or promote homosexual matrimony are deceived and it is a difficult burden – laws may get passed and people may get a paper but it changes nothing.

The homosexual matrimony never happens. Ever.

 

[CMatt25]

The Church has not the authority to accept homosexual ‘marriage,’ any more than it can make women into priests. Are you able to understand this?

The day it does, is the day we see the true Anti-Christ.

Hmm. I don’t know if I would quite go there. I haven’t read this whole thread but I can see the OP’s original point. Many young ppl are becoming more open to gay marriage and look at it as a human rights issue. Sure if as a result we someday legalize gay marriage or unions nationwide, I imagine the Church will do what it does with abortion. It will be legal but they will still oppose it. But many yrs from now one of these young people may become Pope and who knows what the Pope might declare. Perhaps that Pope would discover a new understanding of Scripture as some of the mainline churches have. No one knows what Christ might tell a Pope well into the future.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Here’s the good news: We have an unchanging God. Man will twist anything to his liking, but the Truth can never be destroyed or changed. It is what we hold on to. It is our pillar. It is our Church.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

This is, unfortunately, the truth.

Hmm. I don’t know if I would quite go there. I haven’t read this whole thread but I can see the OP’s original point. Many young ppl are becoming more open to gay marriage and look at it as a human rights issue. Sure if as a result we someday legalize gay marriage or unions nationwide, I imagine the Church will do what it does with abortion. It will be legal but they will still oppose it. But many yrs from now one of these young people may become Pope and who knows what the Pope might declare. Perhaps that Pope would discover a new understanding of Scripture as some of the mainline churches have. No one knows what Christ might tell a Pope well into the future.

Young people becoming more and more “open”? Open to Lies? Open to enslavement to sin? Human Rights? The right to do evil? No one has the right to do evil but God does permit it by free will.

Christ does not change His teaching. He is Truth. Truth does not change ever or it was never Truth, it was Lies. Lies are not Truth. If the secular world “legalizes” so-called “homosexual marriage”, the Catholic Church will reject it, same for abortion. The Pope cannot and will not change it. No one can – it isn’t a matter of “acceptance” or “giving in” or whining or complaining enough to change it. If a society, collectively accepts Lies, they do so at their own peril.

To quote Archbishop Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

“No one knows”? Truth is revealed, it is not determined by public opinion, nor do we have to understand it. Truth has been revealed – some accept it, some reject it, some don’t know about it yet.

 

[CMatt25]

Young people becoming more and more “open”? Open to Lies? Open to enslavement to sin? Human Rights? The right to do evil? No one has the right to do evil but God does permit it by free will.

Christ does not change His teaching. He is Truth. Truth does not change ever or it was never Truth, it was Lies. Lies are not Truth. If the secular world “legalizes” so-called “homosexual marriage”, the Catholic Church will reject it, same for abortion. The Pope cannot and will not change it. No one can – it isn’t a matter of “acceptance” or “giving in” or whining or complaining enough to change it. If a society, collectively accepts Lies, they do so at their own peril.

To quote Archbishop Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

“No one knows”? Truth is revealed, it is not determined by public opinion, nor do we have to understand it. Truth has been revealed – some accept it, some reject it, some don’t know about it yet.

Ok I’m glad ya’ll know what the future holds. Once we had to obey by not eating meat on any Friday of the yr in the US. Once no one would have thought to have been able to take the Eucharist in hand. Once no one thought of speaking liturgy. Once female altar servers were in someone’s imagination. But carry on.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Will do. Satan, the Liar, the Deceiver, Murderer From The Beginning is tirelessly attempting to chip away at Christ’s Church with a pickaxe in a vain, prideful (and futile) attempt to destroy Christ’s Church as if it was some mountain that can be torn down or be sculpted into something else.

It all begins with Pride and Lies, calling Truth, Lies and Lies, Truth so the unwary do not recognize Truth who is Jesus.

The end has been revealed to us. Christ is victorious. Does one accept His victory or reject it?

Choose wisely.

 

[Hypatia]

you are Muslim? do muslims support gay sex, etc.?

I am just going to link to a post where I also answered a question like this earlier today.

See my answer here.

 

[LSK]

No.

 

[markomalley]

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.

The Church will never accept that nonsensical relationship called “gay marriage.” To do so would be a reversal of thousands of years of doctrine.

Having said that, modernist bishops may well close their eyes to it. Or not. It depends upon how courageous they are. A courageous stand will definitely result in loss of tax exempt status and probable branding as mental defectives (once DSM-V is released) and thought criminals.

There will, I am sure, be apostate “Catholic” lay groups, led by and collaborated on by dissenting priests who will demand its change. Those “representatives” of the Church will be featured extensively by the media, who will then bemoan how out of touch the Vatican is…and will indicate that if the Church only allowed “gay marriage,” (fill in the blank with the scandal of the day) would not have ever happened.

 

[antunesaa]

And as it is, not every person may marry. Sisters cannot legally marry their brothers. . .so it’s not as though you can say that ‘any man’ may marry ‘any woman’. There are already limits in place because it is recognized that there are some ‘degrees’ or relationships that preclude marriage.

You’re assuming that incest is going to remain illegal forever. That is not my view. With medical progress, it will be possible to identify potentially defective embryos due to consanguinity and abort them. The traditional motives for the prohibition of incest (endogamy and religion) will loose force in rich countries and eventually the principle that “two consenting adults can do whatever they want” will prevail.

However, the Church will never accept abortion, gay marriage, incest, polygamy, etc. What I think is that societies accepting those things openly will, in due course (2, 3, 4 hundred years?), loose vitality and be substituted by younger, more dynamic people that do not view those things as fundamental rights. The point, in the end, is that those practices are fundamentally flawed from a society viewpoint. They all tend to hamper its vitality and potential. It is of no importance that we Catholics are called “bigots” or “homophobes”. Those are just tags that people put to other people. Things are just the way they are and these practices are dynamically inconsistent because they tend to rarefy their practitioners.

As a side note, it is instructive to observe that, while the view that some races are inferior to others, or women are inferior to men, or people can be held captive, etc. have been condemned by the Church from the very beginning, abortion, sodomy (not homosexuality), incest, etc. have been rejected from the outset by Christianity. Et pour cause… You cannot be discriminated by things that you have to choice upon: your race, your gender, the society you’re born in. On top of that, accepting all races as fundamentally equal, dignifying women, and freeing people are progressive actions that unleash the potential of people.

In contrast, you can choose not to abort, not to practice sodomy (even if you have homosexual tendencies - that’s no sin), not to have sex with relatives, etc.

 

[antunesaa]

Gay marriage is a unique issue–unlike contraception, abortion, and divorce. Contraception and abortion are private matters. People can be using them, but no one else knows, so it’s not in everyone else’s face. This is true of divorce as well. You can’t tell just by looking at a couple that one or both of them was previously divorced. Gay marriage, however, is very obvious and public. When you go to church you’re going to see the gay couple as a gay couple. So the church can be against contraception, abortion and divorce all the while knowing that lots of people ignore these prohibitions because violations are not in the public eye. But the church is going to have a hard time being against gay marriage with gay couples being openly gay in church.

Your point is interesting. But what’s the point of a gay couple going to a Catholic church? If it is to provoke, its a bit stupid and common sense goes against that; if it is to make a statement, it goes against religious freedom (of the others there) because gay couples can go to other churches that welcome them. It’s a bit like going to a women only party you weren’t invited for. Just stating that you are being discriminated against because you’re a man is not enough to chastise those promoting the party.

 

[antunesaa]

The church has made MANY wrong decisions. I could talk about recently trying to cover up the sex scandal and worrying more about the reputation of the church than molested children. Or I could talk about the inquisition or the crusades or the sale of indulgences or all sorts of things that have not been very Christ like in the Church’s history.

True, but that’s not Catholic doctrine. Covering the sex scandals was wrong - and went against the teaching of the Church. Allowing for the Inquisition was wrong, but put in the context of those times does not seem so bad as it looks today. The topic is complex because the Inquisition involved both the states and the Church. In my country (Portugal), some kings wanted the Inquisition but the popes resisted them because they knew it would be used politically. Eventually the Inquisition arrived here, albeit in a mild form. Again, there’s nothing in the doctrine that supports the Inquisition. The Crusades in my view were largely justified. You cannot forget that Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Egypt and most of Northern Africa were largely Christian regions before Islam came from the Arabian peninsula. Islam at the time was an imminently military movement, as some fringes of it still are today. The Christians living there were forced to change religion or flee, many were being killed, etc. So the Crusades, albeit displaying the brutality of those times, can be defended on these grounds.

 

[CPA2]

ANY LAW IN TRANSGRESSION OF DIVINE LAW IS INVALID! An unjust law is no law at all! **Such laws are to be defied **because they do not exist.

St. Thomas Aquinas gave the classical definition of truth. He said, “It is the conformity of the mind with objective reality…Every truth, if it is really truth, presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times.”

Truth with a capital “T” is immutable. It does not change through the ages. Truth does not have legs on it. It does not move around with the changing of the times. Truth cannot be denied.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Ok I’m glad ya’ll know what the future holds. Once we had to obey by not eating meat on any Friday of the yr in the US. Once no one would have thought to have been able to take the Eucharist in hand. Once no one thought of speaking liturgy. Once female altar servers were in someone’s imagination. But carry on.

Do you understand the difference between doctrine and discipline? From your post it appears you don’t.

A doctrine is what the Church teaches. A discipline is how we act upon those teachings.

It has always been a doctrine of the Church that we should fast. That does not change. However, the discipline about which days we fast and how we fast (complete fast or abstaining from meat only) can change.

It has always been a doctrine of the Church that we receive the Eucharist. But the discipline concerning how we receive it can change.

The things you have listed are disciplines, not doctrines.

Since the truths the Church teaches are unchanging, no pope nor any Church council can change them. We can know something about what the future holds, for Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, not now, not ever.