Does a Devout Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[Brad]

fix:

good to see we agree on something, honey.

:clapping: :dancing: :clapping:

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

Why would the Church care about it anyway? No one wants to have thier beliefs and freedoms being imposed on by the church.

 

[mlchance]

2) I know that this is an old tired point, but I don’t think I’ve read anything that sufficiently anwers it: the Jewish moral law contains many prohibitions involving purity, eating, and liturgy that we ignore. For instance, eating lobster is also an “abomination.”

No, eating lobster is not an abomination. Eating lobster is *sheketz, *which means, basically, detestable. OTOH, homosexual activity is toeivah, which means morally reprehensible.

It is also worth noting that kosher food laws are qualified as *sheketz hame lachem, *or detesable among the Jewish people. No such qualifier accompanies Mosaic condemnation of homosexual activity.

IOW, kosher food laws apply only to the Jewish people. They have not ever been binding on non-Jews. The moral laws, however, apply to all people everywhere (hence the lack of the hame lachem qualifier).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Lisa_N]

Led Zeppelin75:

Why would the Church care about it anyway? No one wants to have thier beliefs and freedoms being imposed on by the church.

This comment makes no sense. What do you mean?

Lisa N

 

[JimG]

Legal recognition of same sex marriage and gay adoption will become an open invitation to the sexual molestation of children.

 

[kevinfraser]

Penny Plain:

You’re the one who brought up the child issue, not me. I suspect we’re never going to agree, and we’re getting to the point where we’re just saying the same thing over and over again, except louder.

Does every kid deserve to have a biological Mom AND Dad? If it can’t be biological, do they still deserve a Mom and a Dad? Who argues for these rights of kids?

 

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by fix
Are you implying adultery may not be a mortal sin?

katherine2:

I’m suggesting it may not be a civil offense.

Why not?

The Institution of Marriage is not only a benefit to society, it is it’s bedrock.

Adultery harms the Institution of Marriage, so it therefore does harm to Society. It is an Offense against Civilitity.

Ergo, it can, and should be, a civil offense.

( and besides, it is against Natural Law, and Civil Law should reflect Natural Law as closely as possible to achieve the greatest Human happiness )

 

[Bob_Baran]

Brendan:

Why not?

( and besides, it is against Natural Law, and Civil Law should reflect Natural Law as closely as possible to achieve the greatest Human happiness )

And, civil law can not negate natural law… that’s God’s law.

 

[katherine2]

Brendan:

Why not?

The Institution of Marriage is not only a benefit to society, it is it’s bedrock.

Adultery harms the Institution of Marriage, so it therefore does harm to Society. It is an Offense against Civilitity.

Ergo, it can, and should be, a civil offense.

( and besides, it is against Natural Law, and Civil Law should reflect Natural Law as closely as possible to achieve the greatest Human happiness )

And all of the above applies to divorce as well. Yet divorce is legal and even after mutiple prompting, nneither you nor your confederates have affirmed this.

 

[JimG]

katherine2:

And all of the above applies to divorce as well.

Yes. And there is no doubt that liberalization of divorce laws has done great damage to families and to society. A filing for divorce used to require serious reasons. No more. We might as well change the marriage vows from “till death do us part” to “till one of us decides to leave.”

 

[Lisa_N]

JimG:

Yes. And there is no doubt that liberalization of divorce laws has done great damage to families and to society. A filing for divorce used to require serious reasons. No more. We might as well change the marriage vows from “till death do us part” to “till one of us decides to leave.”

or “Get’s bored”
or “Finds someone better”
or “Needs to spread their wings”

You are exactly right. And like many things this snuck up on us. I remember as a kid that divorce was a HORRIBLE shame. One of my sister’s friends’ parents divorced and it was literally the talk of the town. In my high school of 1000 kids, I bet there weren’t five kids whose parents had divorced.

Do I think all those marriages were just utter bliss? No. But people had a commitment to each other (better or worse???) and most especially to their children. Now we’ve become selfish and selfabsorbed. Oh of course it was rationalized by “It’s BETTER for the children not to be in a home where the parents are unhappy.” It’s proven to be utter baloney and as we see subsequent generations modelling after parents who didn’t keep commitments, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Tying this into the thread, I feel the same way about gay marriage…they are trying to sort of shove it in under the radar and hopefully we’ve learned from judicial activists that gave us abortion and no-fault divorce, experiments with the basic family structure invariably have unintended consequences.

Lisa N

 

[goofyjim]

If you were on trial for being a Catholic, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

I sure hope so. I’m preparing my guilty plea now. I don’t care to walk away scotfree.