They just can’t seem to comprehend that biology cannot be changed.
Correction: God does not accept “gay marriage”. It is contrary to natural law.
Does Jewish law simply ignore verses after Genesis, such as “before you were in your mother’s womb, I knew you”?
This is not the thread to be discussing in detail the meaning of Jeremiah and Psalms concerning abortion. I can assure you that Jewish Law is both theologically and logically sound in this regard.
You can look at the horrible way the straight community lives out marriage and say that with a straight face (no pun intended there)? REALLY??? I know gay people who are 1000 times more committed to their partners than some hetero people. You can argue the Church’s archaic opinions, you can argue what you think Jesus would do and how much he hates their lifestyle (
) but you can’t compare them as they exist in the straight community or even in the Catholic Church. Argue away, but you just lost your debate on that point.Fair enough. However, I will say…
…that the presence of the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” doesn’t leave this aspect of Jewish looking very good in any light.
How do you ban something that doesn’t exist? Could I ban the right for protestants to be called Catholics? Could I ban the right for women to be literally recognised as men for equality sake?
The Catholic Church doesn’t tell people how to vote either, we are also told to vote according to our own consciences.
When that man asked Jesus “who is my neighbour?” Jesus didn’t respond by telling him who his neighbour was, but by saying who was he being neighbourly to, thus everyone is our neighbours, which includes our homosexual brothers and sisters.
If you would advise against that lifestyle for your own children, than how are you loving your homosexual brothers and sisters by advocating it for them?
I know I’ll regret this, but here goes. Would you agree that self-defense is not regarded as murder? In certain cases of abortion that are permitted in Judaism, it is considered self-defense on the part of the mother. For example, to protect the life of the mother, to which the unborn child is a threat, abortion is a means of self-defense. True, the unborn child is innocent of the harm it inflicts; but nonetheless, albeit unwittingly, the baby threatens the mother. This is the one instance in which abortion is absolutely required according to Jewish Law. In other instances, such as if one unborn child who is healthy will surely die due to another unborn child who is unhealthy and who is depleting the resources of the healthy child, then abortion due to self-defense of the healthy unborn child is invoked. In cases of rape and incest, it is the psychological health of the mother that is threatened by the baby. However, this is more difficult to justify so there is more debate within Judaism. In the case of an unborn child who has an extremely serious congenital disease and is unlikely to survive after birth, this may also constitute excessive psychological distress on the part of the mother and so she is threatened by carrying the baby to term.
Tentatively yes, though context always applies.
No, sorry. God designed the body of the mother to carry a child; the life of the child is no more a threat to the mother than my breathing oxygen is to the neighbors next door.
False. The baby, by its very nature, cannot and will never “threaten” a mother. Circumstances sometimes conspire to put one or both lives in jeopardy, but that is not at all the baby’s fault, either intentionally or naturally. You cannot claim “self defense” against a baby because it is simply living in the womb. That’s absolutely, unequivocally absurd.
One doesn’t save a drowning individual by pushing another drowning individual deeper underwater.
Then Jewish law in this regard is attempting to play God, with all due respect. And again, the unhealthy child is not attempting to actively do the other child harm; you cannot claim “self-defense” in a situation wherein all the sick child is doing is existing.
That is good, because murdering a baby in the womb does not “un-rape” the mother in question, and adds only evil to an already evil situation, instead of letting God bring great joy out it.
Then we’d better murder all babies ever, just in case one of them gets sick after they’re born and puts the mother through undue distress. Do you see where this kind of faulty logic ultimately leads?
All lives must be taken into consideration and love, not just the mothers. We do not murder human beings in order to ease our own pain.
Tradition? what about the human anatomy of a man and a woman? the reproductive system? biology 101? it’s not simply a religious issue, not even the scientific community could advocate total equality between the two without losing all prefessional credibility.
What exactly do you think we are denying homosexual couples by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman? I understand that if they wish to live that lifestyle, than that’s fine, I may think it’s wrong, but I’m not going to force my beliefs on them and say they cannot do it.
A horrible representation because we believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? because we believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral? do they believe Jesus would have said different?
Why would you make such a statement?
So how does calling such a lifestyle righteous and just invite such a change?
Another use of this term “legal bans” what are we banning?
Who has a right to marriage and why? don’t you have to first determine what a mariage is before you can recognise a couple or groups “right” to it? Do women have the “right” to be recognised as men?
Would you say the same thing about pedophilia?
I think people will laugh at those states and countries who legalised this nonsense, like I said, not even the scientific community could make such a claim without losing all professional credibility.
Pope Francis is an absolute foe of gay marriage, so it is hard to drag him in to defend it.You can look at the horrible way the straight community lives out marriage and say that with a straight face (no pun intended there)? REALLY??? I know gay people who are 1000 times more committed to their partners than some hetero people. You can argue the Church’s archaic opinions, you can argue what you think Jesus would do and how much he hates their lifestyle (
I’d like to quote Pope Francis:
“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?”
sigh I really don’t understand you “the Church’s Archaic opinions” ???You can look at the horrible way the straight community lives out marriage and say that with a straight face (no pun intended there)? REALLY??? I know gay people who are 1000 times more committed to their partners than some hetero people. You can argue the Church’s archaic opinions, you can argue what you think Jesus would do and how much he hates their lifestyle (
Thank you for quoting that, I believe this is very true.
You’ve not answered my question - what is the “definition of marriage”?
Thank you! I think the Pope hit the nail right on the head.You can look at the horrible way the straight community lives out marriage and say that with a straight face (no pun intended there)? REALLY??? I know gay people who are 1000 times more committed to their partners than some hetero people. You can argue the Church’s archaic opinions, you can argue what you think Jesus would do and how much he hates their lifestyle (
I’d like to quote Pope Francis:
“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?”
God does not love sinful acts. Therefore, we cannot condone them.
Legal bans? This is pure propaganda, using such language. It implies that the Church suddenly got it into its head to upend thousands of years of marriage between any two people, and ‘ban’ marriage between people of the same sex.
