Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[NeedsMercy]

Assuming that someone is deliberately baiting people into arguments is a sin. However, I forgive you.

I did not say that YOU were baiting people.

Fighting is evil and thus sinful. For someone to “invent evil” would be sinful also.

From *Romans *1:28-32…

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

(emphasis mine)

Oh, and btw, I don’t want your “forgiveness” even if I **did ** accuse you of sin, which I did not.

 

[Lochias]

I did not say that YOU were baiting people.

But you implied someone was, which was still highly uncharitable.

Fighting is evil and thus sinful. For someone to “invent evil” would be sinful also.

Then what are you doing to avoid that sin, right now?

Oh, and btw, I don’t want your “forgiveness” even if I **did ** accuse you of sin, which I did not.

 

[josh987654321]

I have a question. Assuming it is sin for the sake of this argument. If a Catholic such as Chizzywinks on her deathbed receives the Sacrament of Anointing or is asked by the Lord on judgment day about this and is not sorry in her heart for how she handled this situation with her son, in the eyes of Catholics is God going to judge/condemn her to eternal separation from Him?

If I said yes/no, quite frankly, I believe I’d be speaking above my pay grade

In saying that, we shouldn’t lack faith in God’s love for us, nor should we expect it though.

“Humility opens the doors to the kingdom of heaven.”

So to answer your question, I don’t know. We are all sinners and it’s only by the grace of God that we may enter heaven at all, but as Jesus said, “do all you can to enter through the narrow gate.” - Matthew 7:13

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I would have been able to explain why Catholics and others believe as you do but you just did.

Okay, thanks, I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t a misconception there or anything.

I can also explain to some degree why Christian communities with more of a so to speak liberal bend believe differently. But that’s a topic for another subforum or another Christian forum altogether. So I won’t get into that here.

Okay. Id be interested though

May I ask you Sy Noe, what do you think of what I have said, do you believe that we are taking the right stand?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

Just on a slightly unrelated note Sy Noe, I just came accross this link to a short piece from Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, which I thought I would share with you, as I really enjoyed it.

“If I Were Not A Catholic …”
by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Hi Rivers23, welcome to the forums

I came to this topic specifically because on December 1st there will be a referendum in my country about gay marriage. I’ll vote against it because **(……) **Plus, I don’t think kindly of artificial insemination and surrogate mothers, which gay couples would use to have kids.

Mind if I ask what country? (Just Curious )

I think you make some good points, however some points I wish to repectfully disagree (not that I wish to go into any detail as I don’t know much in some of those areas, no offense).

I absolutely agree with your last point though, Usually when it comes to this issue of homosexual couples having half biological children with the use of surrogate mothers or artificial insemination, I normally ask them “Do you believe it is right, to intentionaly bring a child into this world with the absolute intention to deprive that child of their biological mother/father when it isn’t done in any way to benefit the child?”

When it comes to homosexual couples and adoption, I believe I am ignorant in this area, so I don’t know enough about that side of things to comment.

When it comes to civil same sex marriage, I normally ask people, what is it that we are denying homosexual couples living such a lifestyle by saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Because I understand that while we believe it to be wrong, it doesn’t mean it should be illegal, thus why I wouldn’t vote for a sodomy law, so as with you, I’m also not against homosexual couples having inheritance and hospital visitation rights, which they can already do through contract.

I believe a person named Peter Plato had a very good secular argument against same sex marriage on another thread I was in that I would just like to quote for you.

Origen52:

I don’t understand this uproar over same sex unions. They are asking for the right to access a legal contract, not a religious ceremony. Calling a civil contract marriage is a semantic act. Call it a civil union if that helps, but when a country has a separation of church and state, no one religious belief should dictate civil laws. Everyone condemns the Muslim effort to give status to sharia law, how is the stand of some religious groups against same sex unions different?

Peter Plato:

The premise of your argument is that SSM is merely a religious issue. It isn’t. Marriage is, at base, a biological relationship between a male and female for the purpose of procreation and laws surrounding marriage have traditionally been concerned with protecting that fundamental biological pairing. The question of SSM has to do with whether governments have any kind of legal authority to redefine what is fundamentally a non-political reality. To say marriage also has been recognized as a religious concern does not mean it is strictly a religious reality, either. Both political and religious definitions are grounded in the biological reality.

Marriage may have religious and political significance, but that does not mean marriage is fundamentally a religious or political entity. It isn’t. There are necessary features of what makes marriage, a marriage and one of those is potential to procreate. This is why marriage became recognized by both political and religious entities. On the political side because marriage is the ONLY means by which new native-born citizens of a political system come into existence. That is the only reason why the state has any jurisdiction - new citizens are involved and protection of citizens is precisely the responsibility of government. The government has no jurisdiction in the affections or loyalties of its citizens. If marriage is strictly about “loving commitment” as SSM proponents insist, then the government has no jurisdiction to be involved. It is like the government telling you who you can or cannot be affectionate with. Do you think the government SHOULD have that kind of power?

There is only one justification the government can possibly have for involving itself in a relationship - to protect vulnerable third parties (children) who can result from that relationship.

What defines a marriage is not a religious question at all. Neither is it political. At ground, it is about human reality or human nature which cannot, ultimately be altered by any political authority no matter how all-encompassing that authority believes itself to be.

A redefinition of marriage by a political body is akin to a collective of astrophysicists deciding that the Moon will now be considered a star just because they have been persuaded by strong voices telling them that they MUST do so in order for the moon be given equal status with the Sun. It is a logical non sequitur. The fact that the moon is considered less important by some, or even all people, is not a reason to misappropriate a fundamental concept.

To argue that calling the moon a star will in no way harm science is simply missing the point. It is still doing bad science, just as redefining marriage is bad governance because it is assuming that a ruling elite has jurisdiction where, in reality, they have none.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rivers23]

Hi Rivers23, welcome to the forums
Mind if I ask what country? (Just Curious )

Thanks for the welcome.
I’m from Croatia.

I think you make some good points, however some points I wish to repectfully disagree (not that I wish to go into any detail as I don’t know much in some of those areas, no offense).

I’d like to hear your thoughts, my opinions are certainly not ‘‘set in stone’’, they are shaped by my own understanding of the world and the Word, which I consider far far from perfect, I’m very open to any interpretation of both.

…which they can already do through contract.

In my country, they can’t. So the problem is, they want to push for this along with child adoption rights, they want it in the same package. So they put us in very uncomfortable position. I don’t deny them inheritance rights, I just wouldn’t prefer them raising children and that’s why I’m voting against, but they accuse you me denying their rights completely, which I’m certainly not doing.

I believe a person named Peter Plato had a very good secular argument against same sex marriage on another thread I was in that I would just like to quote for you.

That argument is great, but I’m afraid many people don’t understand it. If I read that to my pro gay marriage friend, she’d just say ‘‘oh, so you’re discriminating people? shame on you’’ and would go on equality, liberty and rights rant in which I would be accused of many many things.

I think this is mainly a matter of one’s moral view of the world, but the thing is, ‘‘liberal’’ people think they have the right to impose their morality on us and that we can’t do the same to them. So, a referendum is the most fair solution, but still they attack it vigorously. I’ve tried debating people, approaching them with rational, scientific, philosophical and religious arguments, but they would just yell discrimination and dismiss my carefully constructed arguments.

 

[DiZent]

A difficult topic, to be sure. How does God want ME to behave/respond when I encounter same-sex couples. I was understanding about it up until the push for redefinition of marriage. I worked with & socialized with gay & lesbian people all of my adult life. Their sexual preferences were “none of my business” and my motto was “live and let live.” It was a private matter, between the individual & God. However, elevating the status of same-sex unions to marriage, even civil marriage, gives public acceptance of sin. We accept people who have lived together before marriage, who have divorced & remarried without annulment, who have had abortions, etc. They are sinners; we are sinners; The path to forgiveness is repentance.

1. The Bible and the CCC speak plainly on this matter
2. Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it is no longer sin.
3. We can love the sinner, but not the sin
   4, You will be persecuted for standing up for righteousness

I have a couple of nieces who post pro-gay messages all over Facebook. I do not know if they are gay; I suspect not, but this is their “cause celeb” that they stand for, along with abortion rights and all the other liberal causes. They call out anyone who disagrees with them as woman haters or bigots. I pray for them, but keep silent.

 

[PRmerger]

Everything you said:

 

[meltzerboy]

If so, then why did He waste time creating us male and female.

One might also ask why did G-d waste time creating some people with a sexual proclivity toward the same sex? Or do you not believe there is a component of nature in same-sex attraction even if combined with environmental influences? Of course this in itself does not mean gay marriage is necessary. However, according to certain Jewish interpretations, the stability of a committed marriage, whether traditional or same-sex, is preferable to having sexual relations outside of marriage, and especially preferable to leading a promiscuous lifestyle.

 

[EasterJoy]

One might also ask why did G-d waste time creating some people with a sexual proclivity toward the same sex? Or do you not believe there is a component of nature in same-sex attraction even if combined with environmental influences? Of course this in itself does not mean gay marriage is necessary. However, according to certain Jewish interpretations, the stability of a committed marriage, whether traditional or same-sex, is preferable to having sexual relations outside of marriage, and especially preferable to leading a promiscuous lifestyle.

People with same sex attraction aren’t insane, such that they cannot master themselves, and even if they were they most certainly are not a waste. If the inclination to sin makes a person a waste, then it would have been best to skip the Incarnation, wipe us out, and start over, for by original sin and outside the light of the Pascal Mystery, we are ruined race. A person with SSA a waste? That is not what we believe about people with a proclivity towards some sin or other. No, we believe that while we can know right from wrong, God knows hearts, and God will judge which person is culpable and which is not. It is the actions alone that we must judge as good or bad, but we must not judge the person.

 

[meltzerboy]

People with same sex attraction aren’t insane, such that they cannot master themselves, and even if they were they most certainly are not a waste. If the inclination to sin makes a person a waste, then it would have been best to skip the Incarnation, wipe us out, and start over, for by original sin and outside the light of the Pascal Mystery, we are ruined race. A person with SSA a waste? That is not what we believe about people with a proclivity towards some sin or other. No, we believe that while we can know right from wrong, God knows hearts, and God will judge which person is culpable and which is not. It is the actions alone that we must judge as good or bad, but we must not judge the person.

EasterJoy, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I did not mean to suggest that people with SSA are a waste. In response to the question posed by the OP, I was presenting a rhetorical question of my own, the answer to which is no, they are not a waste of G-d’s time. Further, I elaborated upon one of the Jewish interpretations of same-sex marriage, according to the Law, as being morally justified in the sense that it precludes a state of behavior that would be considered sinful: that is, unmarried sexual relations and perhaps promiscuity. This is not the Orthodox Jewish interpretation of the Law, of course, nor is it the Church’s position.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I did not mean to suggest that people with SSA are a waste. In response to the question posed by the OP, I was presenting a rhetorical question of my own, the answer to which is no, they are not a waste of G-d’s time. Further, I elaborated upon one of the Jewish interpretations of same-sex marriage, according to the Law, as being morally justified in the sense that it precludes a state of behavior that would be considered sinful: that is, unmarried sexual relations and perhaps promiscuity. This is not the Orthodox Jewish interpretation of the Law, of course, nor is it the Church’s position.

OK, but I don’t see how a Jewish willingness to re-write moral law is more relevant than a Protestant willingness to do it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Okay, thanks, I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t a misconception there or anything.

Okay. Id be interested though

May I ask you Sy Noe, what do you think of what I have said, do you believe that we are taking the right stand?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Josh, I was in your shoes once and was interested too. That’s why I did a little research looking into other faiths. The internet is great for that as well as Q&A with their clergy.

I do understand what you have said and why you believe as you do. I’m just not quite there nor is my heart convinced yet that it’s the right stand. Or else I’d be a faithful Catholic as you are. Peace

 

[Sy_Noe]

Just on a slightly unrelated note Sy Noe, I just came accross this link to a short piece from Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, which I thought I would share with you, as I really enjoyed it.

“If I Were Not A Catholic …”
by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Thank you for reading
Josh

Thanks Josh. An interesting piece. But hmm I get the impression the archbishop seems to think the world today hates the Catholic Church. Hate is a strong word to me. I do have a sense that Catholics seem to think others hate the CC. I know I don’t hate the CC. I just don’t get why Catholics think there church is hated just because others might disagree with something.

 

[Sy_Noe]

If I said yes/no, quite frankly, I believe I’d be speaking above my pay grade

In saying that, we shouldn’t lack faith in God’s love for us, nor should we expect it though.

“Humility opens the doors to the kingdom of heaven.”

So to answer your question, I don’t know. We are all sinners and it’s only by the grace of God that we may enter heaven at all, but as Jesus said, “do all you can to enter through the narrow gate.” - Matthew 7:13

Thank you for reading
Josh

Fair enough. I like that you don’t know.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks Josh. An interesting piece. But hmm I get the impression the archbishop seems to think the world today hates the Catholic Church. Hate is a strong word to me. I do have a sense that Catholics seem to think others hate the CC. I know I don’t hate the CC. I just don’t get why Catholics think there church is hated just because others might disagree with something.

The reason the bishops talk like that is that it is the mission of the Church to tell the truth, and that truth gets a very dim reception, to say the very least. It is like saying some political party or other is hated. That’s not saying that those who hate the party hate the actual people in the party, but that they hate that message whose abandonment would destroy that party’s whole raison d’être. To say you wouldn’t hate the party if it were founded on different principles is kind of nonsensical.

Now, in your particular case, I can see that you can differentiate because you do not believe that the disagreement in question touches so closely to the Church’s reason for being. A person could say, “I don’t hate the Church, but I hate incense”, on the grounds that the incense could be dispensed with. A person could, actually, say, “I don’t hate the Church, but I hate the Mass”, and be totally sincere. I am saying that the bishops would say, “To hate the Mass is to hate the Church; there cannot be one without the other.” That is why they speak as they do about those who hate the moral law that the Church teaches. There can’t be one without the other, so from their standpoint they can sincerely hold that to hate one is to hate both, even while recognizing that this is not the intention o those who are trying to do away with the teaching and yet not do away with the Church.

 

[Sy_Noe]

EasterJoy, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I did not mean to suggest that people with SSA are a waste. In response to the question posed by the OP, I was presenting a rhetorical question of my own, the answer to which is no, they are not a waste of G-d’s time. Further, I elaborated upon one of the Jewish interpretations of same-sex marriage, according to the Law, as being morally justified in the sense that it precludes a state of behavior that would be considered sinful: that is, unmarried sexual relations and perhaps promiscuity. This is not the Orthodox Jewish interpretation of the Law, of course, nor is it the Church’s position.

I can see where loving monogamous SS marital relationships could be considered different than those that are not. Of course as you said this is not the Catholic position nor that of other faiths in which marriage is between a man and a woman. Just curious is it the Conservative or Reformed Jewish position?

 

[Sy_Noe]

The reason the bishops talk like that is that it is the mission of the Church to tell the truth, and that truth gets a very dim reception, to say the very least. It is like saying some political party or other is hated. That’s not saying that those who hate the party hate the actual people in the party, but that they hate that message whose abandonment would destroy that party’s whole raison d’être. To say you wouldn’t hate the party if it were founded on different principles is kind of nonsensical.

Now, in your particular case, I can see that you can differentiate because you do not believe that the disagreement in question touches so closely to the Church’s reason for being. A person could say, “I don’t hate the Church, but I hate incense”, on the grounds that the incense could be dispensed with. A person could, actually, say, “I don’t hate the Church, but I hate the Mass”, and be totally sincere. I am saying that the bishops would say, “To hate the Mass is to hate the Church; there cannot be one without the other.” That is why they speak as they do about those who hate the moral law that the Church teaches. There can’t be one without the other, so from their standpoint they can sincerely hold that to hate one is to hate both, even while recognizing that this is not the intention o those who are trying to do away with the teaching and yet not do away with the Church.

EasterJoy, I get what you’re saying. I can understand since faithful Catholics believe their church holds moral teaching truth, that they would want their message accepted by the whole world.

 

[JimG]

I came to this topic specifically because on December 1st there will be a referendum in my country about gay marriage. I’ll vote against it because I don’t think two people of the same gender can raise a child as emotionally and psychologically developed as a child raised by the opposite genders, for many reasons. Also, one of the reasons for voting against is that voting yes would mark another step towards secularization and rampant liberalism. No gays have tried to isolate themselves from that worldview so far, so I have no reason to believe they will endorse traditional values, or raise their kids in that manner.

As for what the Bible tells us, we must be careful. We mustn’t hate, we mustn’t despise, but we have the right to stand our moral ground. Homosexuality is a sin, homosexual people should abstain if they’re to be a member of the Church. They should accept their biological inability to have children. To be clear, many heterosexual have strayed when it comes to sexual relations, they are worse than a homosexual who abstains. I’m not against homosexual couples having inheritance and hospital visitation rights.

The thing I would like to emphasize is that the Church should condemn all sexual deviancy, a person is not to be condemned based on sexual attraction only, we are all under temptation daily in this modern world. So, I see no reason to reject a homosexual that is chaste. But still, I personally would not prefer that they raise children. Among other things, gay marriages have high dissolution rates and kids raised by single parents are twice as likely to develop all kinds of problems compared to kids raised by two parents. Plus, I don’t think kindly of artificial insemination and surrogate mothers, which gay couples would use to have kids.

I pretty much concur with your post except for one sentence. You say of homosexuals, “They should accept their biological inability to have children.”

For the most part, homosexuals are not biologically incapable of procreation. It is simply an ability that they do not choose to exercise. That’s all right if they choose not to exercise it, but the ability is there.

In much the same way heterosexuals do have the ability to be faithful, committed, and open to life in their marriages. It is an ability that they often do not exercise. That’s why there is divorce. And heterosexuals have the ability to remain chaste before marriage, and to refrain from sexual activity except within marriage. Yet there is still fornication, cohabitation, and unwed mothers, because that ability is not exercised.

And all of those things adversely affect the society that we live in. To quote John Donne “No man is an island.” Individual moral failures lead to societal and civilizational dysfunction.