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

[Realist]

Remember the fall of Rome?
Every excess and immorality was approved - and then Rome fell.

PS - that fact should fit at the top of the list of all facts in your “religion” of reality.

Correlation does not imply causation. Societies don’t fall because they’re excessively immoral. They may, however, become a reflection of something you personally dislike. That would be a more realistic assertion to make.

 

[Realist]

I love happy thoughts. Marriage, in its traditional form, has generally been viewed favorably by governments and even been given incentives and tax benefits, because it provided societal benefits, the main one being the production and education of the next generation of citizens and taxpayers.

Gay marriage provides no such societal benefits. Now it can be argued that gay families also help society. I don’t believe so, but wont’t go into the details here. Despite recent advances in such things as in vitro fertilization, it remains the case that every new human being must arise from the union of a mom and a dad, which just happens to be the foundation of the basic family unit. And permanence in the family unit helps support a stable civilization.

Gay marriage alone won’t bring down society. I think that contraception and no-fault divorce have done far more to weaken the foundations of society than gay marriage. But’s it’s another nail in the coffin.

I like to be optimistic about the future of Western civilization. But the one institution which might provide some hope–the Catholic Church–is universally denigrated and its teachings ignored.

I don’t see why any apocalyptic signs for the US whatsoever. If you see them, please, fill me in. And make sure they’re signs of our country actually crumbling and not just signs that we’re moving in a direction you’re not happy about. The only real threat to US dominance seems to be the rise of China, but they’re still a long way off. Do you think China, in its rise, represents some sort of holier society than ours? Or maybe the piousness of a society has nothing to do with its success?

 

[catharina]

Correlation does not imply causation. Societies don’t fall because they’re excessively immoral. They may, however, become a reflection of something you personally dislike. That would be a more realistic assertion to make.

In this instance, correlation easily implies causation. It would be a realistic assertion to make that you are unaware that a society that abandons morality also abandons law and it falls. Law is based in simple morality. No morality, soon enough, no law, no society.

 

[catharina]

I don’t see why any apocalyptic signs for the US whatsoever. If you see them, please, fill me in. And make sure they’re signs of our country actually crumbling and not just signs that we’re moving in a direction you’re not happy about. The only real threat to US dominance seems to be the rise of China, but they’re still a long way off. Do you think China, in its rise, represents some sort of holier society than ours? Or maybe the piousness of a society has nothing to do with its success?

Deeper questions:
how do you measure the success of society?
when did you abandon the morality of your childhood faith?
do you know that your reality sounds like relativism and materialism?
how old are you? you sound like a teenager.
is that when you abandoned your faith?

US dominance says nothing about morality.
US laws are diminishing in terms of morality.

 

[catharina]

regarding this:
*
“how old are you? you sound like a teenager.
is that when you abandoned your faith?”*

Never mind. I found the answer in your profile.
You left the Catholic faith in your mid-teens although you
define that time as when you were a ‘young adult’ (yet I fail
to think of any nation that would call a young teen a young adult.)

Still it’s clear now where you are in your personal development.
Sometimes adolescent thinking can extend for decades.

 

[John21652]

I would like to draw the attention of everyone to an article on how the United Nations is used as an agent of influence to manipulate and change the way national governments govern their constituents.

The article is -
The United Nations Marxist Agenda.

It describes the processby which UN resolutions are drawn up, discussed and made acceptable to the disparate national governments which participate in the discussions. Many of the delegates are not democratically elected, as we may think, because many of them are representatives of NGOs with specific agendas. The article explains this in greater detail, so I will spare you a repeat of what you can read for yourself. However, the author tells us this -

The Marxist agenda is one of global scope: its proponents will not rest until they have eradicated every last remnant of pre-sexual-revolution morality. Since the 1960s, they have acquired powerful instruments to achieve this aim: They manipulate the complicated and non-transparent bureaucracy of the UN (they fondly refer to it as “the system”), which exerts powerful pressure on the governments of the world. Through this bureaucracy they aggressively advance their cause, initiating attacks at every opportunity on the core values of family-based societies, especially the Judaeo-Christian values that have shaped Western civilization.

It does not take an Einstein to see that the Judeo-Christian societies of the west are slowly crumbling before our very eyes. White anted from within by the adoption of so called ethical values which really have no place as mainstays in of our cultural edifices. In fact, they are undermining our cultural edifices brick by brick, with each change seemingly innocuous until one steps back and realises the foundations of the house are causing the whole to lean a little more each day. We have seen the institution of marriage weakened bit by bit, the role of religion in society weakened bit by bit, the value of unborn children weakened bit by bit, until suddenly, we open our eyes and notice that the totality of the new morality is really no morality at all. That is, unless one is willing to introduce terms such as relativism and human rights into the argument as a means of excusing the changes. The changes may suit certain individuals whose hedonism is being given free reign, but in terms of society, the social cohesion bought about by shared values is weakened and made less and less.

Cont.d

 

[John21652]

Cont.d

This thread asks will the Church ever accept gay marriage. Many have advanced theological arguments as to why the answer should be ‘no’. Some have advanced secular arguments as to why the answer will one day be ‘yes’. Others seem to think the advancement of the secularised morality will isolate the Church to such an extent that she will become compliantly silent.

Well, let me paraphrase the author of the article I have cited. I am a product of a family-based Judeo-Christian society. I am also just a man. Therfore I have two perspectives. The first, as just a man, causes me to pity homosexuals who feel an attraction towards their own sex. As a man, I know that what they experience is not natural. It is not normal. The thought of homosexual union repulses me, as a man. I am not naive. I have travelled the world. I have been ‘hit upon’ by homosexuals and I have always found their advances repulsive and offensive. I could never entertain the thought of being sexually attracted to a man. In fact, as a man, a normal, heterosexual man, I don’t ‘get’ the attraction. It makes no sense to me. I have brothers, whom I love very much. I have male friends whom I care for deeply. But the homosexual attraction has never entered my psyche. No man can turn me on. Now that is the norm and I know hundreds of other men who feel as I do. Exactly as I do. Down through the ages this normal male behaviour has been given the title of Natural Law. It’s the normal way of the world. Does this revulsion I feel for homosexuals mean I hate them? No.
I simply pity them.

What does make me angry is the fact that the homosexual lobby would attempt to label my natural revulsion as ‘homophobia’. In other words I harbour some underlying psychological fear of them. Not bloody likely. As a matter of fact, back in my wilder youth I was talked into accompanying a homosexual man and a female friend to a ‘gay’ nightclub. What I saw in that place revolted me totally. I left early. Couldn’t get out fast enough, as a matter of fact. Did I ‘fear’ any of them? No way. I detest the advances some have made, I am revolted by the thought of homosexual acts and the idea of two men living together in a sexual union, because of same sex attraction, is abhorrent. But to suggest that I have a ‘phobia’ is just plain nonsense. What that angers me is the hijacking of certain English words to make the homosexual cause seem normal. The use of the word ‘homophobia’ is one example. The hijacking of the word ‘gay’ is another. I am angered by the willingness of the homosexual lobby to throw labels at those who are repulsed by their behaviors.

The latest attempt is to suggest that two people of the same sex can be married. Well, go back a hundred years and make that suggestion. Go back a thousand years and make that suggestion. Go back five thousand years and make that suggestion. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Marriage turns a man into a husband and a women into a wife. Why should it be any different today. I do not, as a man, wish to allow the definition of the word to be altered to accomodate something which is abnormal and abhorrent to me as a man. The homosexual lobby has tried to whitewash their behaviour by the constant appropriation and use of these words. No matter, for what they are and what they do is still the same - abnormal.

As a Catholic I can never support the normalisation of homosexuality. It is forbidden in the Bible, where it is described as an abomination, an aberation. It is forbidden by the Catechism of the Church to which I belong. However, the teachings of both the Bible and the Church simply reinforce what I, as a man, naturally feel. Did the Catholic upbringing I enjoyed influence my thinking? Did it cause me to be ‘homophobic’? No, because homosexuality was never an issue that was discussed, either around the dinner table, nor in classes at school. It wasn’t until after I left school that homosexuality was an issue and then it was made so because the homosexual ‘movement’ became an organised force in politics and they worked very hard to overturn the various mechanisms of society which disallowed them normality and prominence. The Catholic Church then, holds fast to a morality given it by a higher authority. It also holds on to a morality which is the norm amongst human societies. The morality actually reflects the natural and normal behaviour of humans. No matter what the secularisation of society dishes up, the behaviour of same sex attracted humans will never be normal. The tragedy is that so many people will feel they have to accept it publicly while as humans they will abhor it privately.

That, I would suggest, should give cold comfort to the homosexual lobby, because they must understand that though they may appear to be accepted, it is only because their acceptance is required by secular law. Privately, the vast majority of the human race will still consider their behaviour to be abnormal.

 

[John21652]

Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby is nothing but a small part of a larger attempt to pull out the bricks which are the foundation of our inherited social mores and institutions. Those mores and institutions have always represented what is normal and natural and have regulated us accordingly. Religious instruction shows that if we step out onto the slippery slope of immorality, their are no bounds to how human behaviour will manifest itself. According to the Church, the slippery slope will take us away from Christ, God and eternal salvation. According to the development and operation of human societies, that same slippery slope will see our social cohesion decay and be represented by nothing more than a common border. As a man, that slippery slope is dangerous because it undermines what I feel is natural human relationships by making the abnormal appear as the norm.

The shame of it all is that the slippery slope is being walked on by our often unelected representatives via the United Nations. Here, all manner of minority groups seek to undermine the norms of our western societies. Perhaps it is time we gave a little less credence to the ‘international’ and realised that such covenants are dangerous.

The Catholic Church cannot ever accept homosexual ‘marriage’ without turning its back on both the morality given it by the higher authority it represents and turning its back on what has been considered the norm in human behaviour for eons and eons. Religion has also been the norm amongst human societies for eons and eons. The Church maust stand against a Godless society.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Cont.d

.

Well, let me paraphrase the author of the article I have cited. I am a product of a family-based Judeo-Christian society. I am also just a man. Therfore I have two perspectives. The first, as just a man, causes me to pity homosexuals who feel an attraction towards their own sex. As a man, I know that what they experience is not natural. It is not normal. The thought of homosexual union repulses me, as a man. I am not naive. I have travelled the world. I have been ‘hit upon’ by homosexuals and I have always found their advances repulsive and offensive. I could never entertain the thought of being sexually attracted to a man. In fact, as a man, a normal, heterosexual man, I don’t ‘get’ the attraction. It makes no sense to me. I have brothers, whom I love very much. I have male friends whom I care for deeply. But the homosexual attraction has never entered my psyche. No man can turn me on. Now that is the norm and I know hundreds of other men who feel as I do. Exactly as I do. Down through the ages this normal male behaviour has been given the title of Natural Law. It’s the normal way of the world. Does this revulsion I feel for homosexuals mean I hate them? No.
I simply pity them.

I have often heard men express this opinion on male homosexuality, but then when the subject of female homosexuality comes up the response is always, literally always: “lesbians are hot; I want to watch them.” Any insights on why this is so?

 

[Realist]

Still it’s clear now where you are in your personal development.
Sometimes adolescent thinking can extend for decades.

What a bunch of reductive, dismissive nonsense. If someone doesn’t agree with you, they are still “in [their] personal development”? Come down from your cloud. The US isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[catharina]

What a bunch of reductive, dismissive nonsense. If someone doesn’t agree with you, they are still “in [their] personal development”? Come down from your cloud. The US isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

What a bunch of reductive, dismissive nonsense (your posts).
The US has already changed in ways that make it unrecognizable in certain matters.
I know that you disagree with me. My guess? Your father DOES agree with me.

 

[Realist]

What a bunch of reductive, dismissive nonsense (your posts).
The US has already changed in ways that make it unrecognizable in certain matters.
I know that you disagree with me. My guess? Your father DOES agree with me.

So do you plan on speaking in specifics soon or do you intend to continue making sweeping generalizations? In what ways has the US changed that has made it unrecognizable, and how does one connect those changes to the broader theme of the country imploding (as Rome did, like a previous poster suggested)?

I don’t really understand your last point about my dad agreeing with you. We are our own men. How does him agreeing more with you strengthen your argument or weaken mine? Who’s the one sounding juvenile?

 

[catharina]

So do you plan on speaking in specifics soon or do you intend to continue making sweeping generalizations? In what ways has the US changed that has made it unrecognizable, and how does one connect those changes to the broader theme of the country imploding (as Rome did, like a previous poster suggested)?

I don’t really understand your last point about my dad agreeing with you. We are our own men. How does him agreeing more with you strengthen your argument or weaken mine? Who’s the one sounding juvenile?

Ask your father.

Your father and I live lives of faith. (Review your own posts at your profile.)
You live of life of cynicism mixed with ridicule yet wish to be taken seriously.
I can’t take you seriously. That’s that.

 

[Realist]

Ask your father.

Your father and I live lives of faith. (Review your own posts at your profile.)
You live of life of cynicism mixed with ridicule yet wish to be taken seriously.
I can’t take you seriously. That’s that.

Good avoidance. I do talk to my dad about his faith. It’s interesting to me. I’m writing a novel about faith and how our beliefs shape our objective realities.

What I don’t understand is why you would enter such a contentious thread as this, start arguing with a poster (me), only to reveal that anything anyone who disagrees with you says will not be taken seriously. Seems like a completely futile, pointless act.

But, then, my real theory is that you’re avoiding offering specifics because that would be difficult, and because you don’t actually believe the US is going to implode like Rome. You just kind of hope it does so you can say, “Told you so! Should have listened to Jesus!”

 

[catharina]

Good avoidance. I do talk to my dad about his faith. It’s interesting to me. I’m writing a novel about faith and how our beliefs shape our objective realities.

What I don’t understand is why you would enter such a contentious thread as this, start arguing with a poster (me), only to reveal that anything anyone who disagrees with you says will not be taken seriously. Seems like a completely futile, pointless act.

But, then, my real theory is that you’re avoiding offering specifics because that would be difficult, and because you don’t actually believe the US is going to implode like Rome. You just kind of hope it does so you can say, “Told you so! Should have listened to Jesus!”

I imagine you have theories for every occasion.
Check back and see when/how I entered this thread.
Get it?

I take many people seriously.
However, that group doesn’t include you.

 

[Realist]

I imagine you have theories for every occasion.
Check back and see when/how I entered this thread.
Get it?

I take many people seriously.
However, that group doesn’t include you.

More avoidance. You sound like those conservatives who pretend to fear the collapse of civilization but are secretly trying to will it into being. I don’t take you seriously either, but I still enjoy debating with you.

 

[antunesaa]

Hold on. In the Roman Catholic Church as it is in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands there is a position called “Pastoralreferent” (if you wanted to translate it directly it might be something like a pastoral advisor).
These are men and women who have the equivalent of at least a masters degree in theology. They take over a lot of the priestly tasks apart from the sacraments in regions where the priests are just overwhelmed with work and several parishes at once.
They are allowed to preach in the liturgy of the word if there is no liturgy of the Eucharist. I have worked with a woman in that kind of a position while I was a catechist 8 years ago. She did preach once in a while.

Still, it’s not the Eucharist. We also have that in my home village in Portugal during August, when the vicar is on holidays.

 

[catharina]

More avoidance. You sound like those conservatives who pretend to fear the collapse of civilization but are secretly trying to will it into being.
Another ‘vital’ generalization.

I don’t take you seriously either, but I still enjoy debating with you.
This is not a debate. Return to your father. He can help your thinking.

 

[Realist]

Another ‘vital’ generalization.

That’s a fair point. I made a generalization. Fortunately, though, it wasn’t nearly as sweeping as saying our country is on the brink of destruction

Return to your father. He can help your thinking.

My father returned to the church because he claimed to have seen a miracle. Nothing short of an unambiguous sign that the Catholic god exists will bring me back. Everything you are saying is predicated on the unsubstantiated fact that you’ve chosen the right religion. But I don’t mean to be unfair. Maybe God has unambiguously revealed himself to you. He hasn’t to me. I can’t really jump on your bandwagon until he does.

Anyway, if you’re just going to keep parroting your line about returning to my father, please just stop replying. This would be more interested if YOU engaged me, and didn’t just defer me to other sources you’ve never met and cannot ascertain the credibility of.

 

[JimG]

I have often heard men express this opinion on male homosexuality, but then when the subject of female homosexuality comes up the response is always, literally always: “lesbians are hot; I want to watch them.” Any insights on why this is so?

Because they’re still women. And maybe it has something to do with a tee shirt I saw advertised for women. It had this logo printed on it: “Instant lesbian. Just add alcohol.” Sometimes what the gay lobby likes to call “sexual preference” can be rather fluid. Sometimes people just like to be trendy.