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

[pete_29]

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.

Read my OP carefully, I never said they were a waste of God’s time. I meant if in His creation, Man and Woman weren’t ordained to be together, Why didn’t He just create us all one sex?

 

[EasterJoy]

I might ask “Why did God create me with a terrible temper?” Because I have one, is it right for me to lose it and curse my neighbor. This is one of the beasts that I have to contend with, and it it up to me to learn to control it. Sometimes I fail, but I don’t expect anyone to condone what I do. Life isn’t easy, but we have to try and follow God’s rules, and not let our failures bring others down with us. Sorry if my ramblings don’t make much sense.

I try to think of these proclivities the way I think about different dog breeds. Every breed is really good at some things but really not suited for other things. I very much suspect that SSA brings with it a spectrum of temperaments that are uniquely valuable in ways both obvious and not obvious. IOW, I think that a brain that produces SSA or gender dysphoria or ADHD or Down Syndrome or even one that produces nothing that anyone thinks is the least bit remarkable has aspects to it quite apart from what might make those things hard for the person thinking with that brain. Every temperament has to be mastered, yes, but once mastered the different breeds do not all become the same kind of dog. They become the best versions of their kind of dog, doing the things that other wonderful versions of different dogs could not do.

 

[josh987654321]

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.

I probably shouldn’t have said disagree, more that I don’t understand enough of it to say I completely agree, mainly when it comes to adoption, I try to stay clear of that debate, because I believe that there isn’t a “one size fits all” solution, so like I said in my previous post, I’m ignorant in that side of things, but it doesn’t sit comfortably with me.

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.

Whoa, that’s very deceptive of them, I believe that’s a very clever way to decieve people on this issue.

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.

Maybe I should just stick to the simplicity of it, which is, a quick study of the genitalia (biology 101) will tell them that it’s not the same, I don’t believe It’s rocket science.

When they reject this point, I believe we need a physcological explanation for the same sex marriage advocate rather than a logical explanation of a marriage and why their not the same.

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.

I think it’s wrong when they try to bully people into supporting this delusional notion of same sex marriage like that.

When people accuse me of discrimination or something when I support traditional marriage, I try to pull em up right there, The first thing I normally ask is, What is marriage?

And than, What is marriage equality?

Because I have found that Same sex marriage advocates always seem to refer to it as ‘marriage equality’ and that to be against same sex civil marriage is discrimination (or whatever term they use). However if we are discriminating or are against ‘marriage equality’ by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we don’t have the right to ‘force’ … as they say, our definition of marriage being between a man and a woman onto them, than what right do they have to force their definition of marriage being between two people onto those who think it should be between more than two people? and etc etc

Therefore they would have to advocate the legalisation of every union that someone at a whim or fancy wished to call a marriage, or they themselves are also discriminating and are against ‘marriage equality’. Thus opening the door to many other definitions and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

I was watching a Dr Phil episode where he had both sides on and was talking about SSM, and he mentioned along the lines of “How will allowing this homosexual couple to marry affect your marriage?”

On the outside I believe this looks like a good question (one used often by same sex marriage advocates).

However, No one is imposing any other unions someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage on me either, they are just including it into the definition and saying “If you don’t agree with it, than just don’t do it” but once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

And as Ender so well articulated it for me on another thread in reply to what I said here -

Ender:

I don’t think this point is fully appreciated. Once the definition of marriage becomes accepted as nothing more than an arbitrary definition by the state, then there are no logical arguments to set any limits to it at all. One woman in Washington (state) wanted to marry her house, well - why not? No one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if she marries a house. How do we justify discriminating against her? It sounds ludicrous but if we accept that the meaning of the term marriage is completely arbitrary then we have no rational basis on which to place any limit at all.

I believe Ender is absolutely correct here.

I believe Marriage being only between a man and a woman used to be a self evident truth, that is soundly backed up with a quick study of the reproductive organs (biology 101) but with the total rejection of this, how do you place any limit at all on it?

Many people say “How does this change (same sex marriage) in civil marriage change the Sacrament of Matrimony in any way?” as if we should therefore advocate it and legalise it as a “live and let live” or “tolerance” thing.

In which I would pose the same scenario above and say, “How does this change (recognising this woman and her house as married) in civil marriage change the Sacrament of Matrimony in any way?” the answer would be, it doesn’t. I believe It instead makes a mockery of marriage and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

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 like listening to protestants such as “Ravi Zacharias” and “Tim Keller” on atheism and the controversal issues such as homosexuality and abortion.

Here are some good youtube clips if your interested (they are under 10min) -

Why Does God Forbid Homosexuality? - Dr Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias Q & A: Abortion and Free Will

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

May I ask what you believe about the true presense in the Holy Eucharist (that preciuous gift that Christ gave us at the last supper)?

I’m just taking a punt here, but I would like to ask you to read this small post of mine linked below from another thread about the mass, because I don’t understand why you would throw away such an enourmous gift (Christ coming down and feeding us with his body, blood, soul and divinity) over an issue like same sex marriage.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=813933&page=2

Eucharistic Miracles -

What are Eucharistic Miracles? Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, Jesus has proven beyond any doubt that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. Why did He have to prove this to us? It is because at certain times in history, there were heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. On other occasions, some priests doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. And yet, on other occasions, the Holy Eucharist was abused by believers and non-believers alike.

What follows are some of the Eucharistic Miracles that took place throughout the history of the Catholic Church. All of these have received the full approval of the Catholic Church. Please click on the links to obtain details about each Eucharistic Miracle.

catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

Here is some more on the true presense in the Holy Eucharist if you are interested -

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

Sorry for the off-topic nature of this last bit.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

This one you might like -

What do Christians have against Homosexuality? Tim Keller

I don’t agree with all of it but I believe he makes some very good points, especially about how some take the sin of homosexuality so seriously that love for their homosexual neighbours is lost and others seem to be ignoring the sin entirely in trying to love their homosexual neighbours.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I try to think of these proclivities the way I think about different dog breeds. Every breed is really good at some things but really not suited for other things. I very much suspect that SSA brings with it a spectrum of temperaments that are uniquely valuable in ways both obvious and not obvious. IOW, I think that a brain that produces SSA or gender dysphoria or ADHD or Down Syndrome or even one that produces nothing that anyone thinks is the least bit remarkable has aspects to it quite apart from what might make those things hard for the person thinking with that brain. Every temperament has to be mastered, yes, but once mastered the different breeds do not all become the same kind of dog. They become the best versions of their kind of dog, doing the things that other wonderful versions of different dogs could not do.

EasterJoy, this is so beautiful. I feel like it gives me the slightest beginning of a notion about what God thinks of me. Thank you!

:extrahappy:

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy, this is so beautiful. I feel like it gives me the slightest beginning of a notion about what God thinks of me. Thank you!

:extrahappy:

Many of those thought to be last because they were only seen with the eyes of human beings will turn out to be first. The only thing that should not be any surprise is that in the end there will be plenty of surprises.

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.” Luke 1:46-55

 

[pete_29]

I try to think of these proclivities the way I think about different dog breeds. Every breed is really good at some things but really not suited for other things. I very much suspect that SSA brings with it a spectrum of temperaments that are uniquely valuable in ways both obvious and not obvious. IOW, I think that a brain that produces SSA or gender dysphoria or ADHD or Down Syndrome or even one that produces nothing that anyone thinks is the least bit remarkable has aspects to it quite apart from what might make those things hard for the person thinking with that brain. Every temperament has to be mastered, yes, but once mastered the different breeds do not all become the same kind of dog. They become the best versions of their kind of dog, doing the things that other wonderful versions of different dogs could not do.

 

[meltzerboy]

Read my OP carefully, I never said they were a waste of God’s time. I meant if in His creation, Man and Woman weren’t ordained to be together, Why didn’t He just create us all one sex?

Yes, I realize what you meant, pete. I was just posing my own question in relation and reaction to yours. That is, the fact G-d created some people with an attraction to the same sex might be for a reason other than bearing their cross in suffering with Christ. Maybe they were also designed to seek and find love and companionship in an intimate relationship with a partner.

 

[Lochias]

Yes, I realize what you meant, pete. I was just posing my own question in relation and reaction to yours. That is, the fact G-d created some people with an attraction to the same sex might be for a reason other than bearing their cross in suffering with Christ. Maybe they were also designed to seek and find love and companionship in an intimate relationship with a partner.

But biology, logic, reason, Scripture, history and theology all point to the opposite. Where is it guaranteed anywhere that human beings are meant to find companionship and love only in an intimate relationship?

I think we all have a tendency to want to project our own emotional states onto God, rationalizing what we feel with what we know. Feelings are good, and are there for a reason, but they were never meant to be our guiding light.

 

[Rau]

Yes, I realize what you meant, pete. I was just posing my own question in relation and reaction to yours. That is, the fact G-d created some people with an attraction to the same sex might be for a reason other than bearing their cross in suffering with Christ. Maybe they were also designed to seek and find love and companionship in an intimate relationship with a partner.

I could agree with that viewpoint if:

• one had no other information with which to be guided morally; and
• one was not limited to “one person to one person” relationships.

What about the person “called” to love intimately several spouses? I suspect many more wrongs could be listed using the reasoning you propose. "I feel ____________, therefore I am called to ________________.

 

[Rivers23]

Because I have found that Same sex marriage advocates always seem to refer to it as ‘marriage equality’ and that to be against same sex civil marriage is discrimination (or whatever term they use). However if we are discriminating or are against ‘marriage equality’ by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we don’t have the right to ‘force’ … as they say, our definition of marriage being between a man and a woman onto them, than what right do they have to force their definition of marriage being between two people onto those who think it should be between more than two people? and etc etc

Exactly. But they won’t admit this point. I’ve debated a lot of people, they mainly stick to ‘‘arguments’’ such as discrimination, rights and whatnot. It is not a question of science or rationale or morals, they simply want to impose their definitions on us and they think we don’t have the right to defend our definitions. A lot of them wants to simply get rid of the Church’s influence, it’s their weapon for the secularization of the society.

Therefore they would have to advocate the legalisation of every union that someone at a whim or fancy wished to call a marriage, or they themselves are also discriminating and are against ‘marriage equality’. Thus opening the door to many other definitions and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

I completely agree. But the problem is that people say ‘‘well, it’s two consenting adults getting married, a house can’t consent’’

I was watching a Dr Phil episode where he had both sides on and was talking about SSM, and he mentioned along the lines of “How will allowing this homosexual couple to marry affect your marriage?”

If they don’t adopt, it doesn’t affect me, but they are redefining the definition, which is not so good for the reasons you stated below. When they raise kids, then they affect the society because we don’t really know how that children will ‘‘turn out’’.

In which I would pose the same scenario above and say, “How does this change (recognising this woman and her house as married) in civil marriage change the Sacrament of Matrimony in any way?” the answer would be, it doesn’t. I believe It instead makes a mockery of marriage and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

I think they don’t value the institution of marriage, they just want the legal rights. Let’s face it, most of them are secular anyway. Thus, they can’t even understand why people are so sensitive when it comes to redefining marriage and they don’t care about their influence on the society since they don’t consider it negative either way. Gay marriage may as well prove to become a rock that started the rock slide of secularization and complete moral relativization of the society, which will ultimately destroy itself. But people don’t consider the long term effects nor do they care. Btw, I think that this rise of liberalization and secularism is all an orchestrated effort by the enemies of the Church.

 

[Rau]

…I think they don’t value the institution of marriage, they just want the legal rights. Let’s face it, most of them are secular anyway. Thus, they can’t even understand why people are so sensitive when it comes to redefining marriage and they don’t care about their influence on the society since they don’t consider it negative either way. Gay marriage may as well prove to become a rock that started the rock slide of secularization and complete moral relativization of the society, which will ultimately destroy itself. But people don’t consider the long term effects nor do they care. Btw, I think that this rise of liberalization and secularism is all an orchestrated effort by the enemies of the Church.

It is not about “legal rights”, for in many jurisdictions, same sex couples receive the same rights as a heterosexual couple, with very few exceptions. It is about acceptance and affirmation. They don’t want to be under societal pressure to deny themselves intimate relationships. They don’t want to be regarded as living a disordered life, they don’t want to have their love viewed as *inferior *to others’. They don’t want to be denied opportunities to form “families”.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, I realize what you meant, pete. I was just posing my own question in relation and reaction to yours. That is, the fact G-d created some people with an attraction to the same sex might be for a reason other than bearing their cross in suffering with Christ. Maybe they were also designed to seek and find love and companionship in an intimate relationship with a partner.

It is not the pursuit of love and companionship or human intimacy with a fellow human being that is the problem when a household is set up between two of the same sex. Most human beings are designed for companionship; this is no mystery.

It is the pursuit of a partner for genital acts that are intrinsically disordered that is the problem. If that is at the core and foundation of the relationship, the result is a whitened sepulcher, regardless of all the fine points of the rest of the structure. Considering that the sexual acts are intrinsically dead and not of the kind that are ever fecund, I don’t think the metaphor too harsh.

I don’t know why some people have this orientation towards intrinsically disordered sexual acts. I can only guess. My guess is that there are brain structures which produce that orientation also have unique and valuable orientations in other ways, just as an aggressive nature that could pose a threat towards violence sometimes goes with a daring nature willing to take worthy and even necessary risks, to “dare mighty deeds”. Why believe that homosexuality is all about sex, then? I don’t think that is necessarily true at all. Maybe homosexuality is about a whole range of orientations in all sorts of areas, an orientation whose only disordered feature is the vulnerability to desire disordered sex. What is true, however, is that an organic tendency towards some temptation or disordered act does not make the act moral. Where the person is a moral actor (i.e., not insane), the person must act according to the moral law, regardless of orientations we might each have that leave us particularly vulnerable to that sin. Having a tendency to do bad things does not a bad person make, however. It could be that the same person, having mastered the orientation towards sin, has the capacity to do good of the sort that others cannot imagine until the other brings it to life. One can’t know.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yes, I realize what you meant, pete. I was just posing my own question in relation and reaction to yours. That is, the fact G-d created some people with an attraction to the same sex might be for a reason other than bearing their cross in suffering with Christ. Maybe they were also designed to seek and find love and companionship in an intimate relationship with a partner.

Did God create the person with the attraction or is the attraction the result of our fallen nature? Why don’t I hear arguments that God created Bob blind and Bob should learn to embrace his blindness? Or other disability? Why do these arguments only crop up when it comes to sex?

God created us in an unfallen state with free will, we chose to sin and hence the fallen state we find ourselves in. God did not create us in this fallen state with our weakness and attraction to sin–we did that to ourselves.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[JimG]

Did God create the person with the attraction or is the attraction the result of our fallen nature? Why don’t I hear arguments that God created Bob blind and Bob should learn to embrace his blindness? Or other disability? Why do these arguments only crop up when it comes to sex?

God created us in an unfallen state with free will, we chose to sin and hence the fallen state we find ourselves in. God did not create us in this fallen state with our weakness and attraction to sin–we did that to ourselves.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Yes, I think that we all have a lot of disordered attractions other than homosexuality. And every disordered attraction is a difficulty to those who must try to overcome them.

 

[Lochias]

It is not about “legal rights”, for in many jurisdictions, same sex couples receive the same rights as a heterosexual couple, with very few exceptions. It is about acceptance and affirmation. They don’t want to be under societal pressure to deny themselves intimate relationships. They don’t want to be regarded as living a disordered life, they don’t want to have their love viewed as *inferior *to others’. They don’t want to be denied opportunities to form “families”.

In other words, they want the government to sanction the experience of love, however misguided it may be.

Which is absolutely insane.

 

[DCNBILL]

It is not about “legal rights”, for in many jurisdictions, same sex couples receive the same rights as a heterosexual couple, with very few exceptions. It is about acceptance and affirmation. They don’t want to be under societal pressure to deny themselves intimate relationships. They don’t want to be regarded as living a disordered life, they don’t want to have their love viewed as *inferior *to others’. They don’t want to be denied opportunities to form “families”.

The Catholic Church does not accept sin it admonishes it. The pressure they are under in regards to their intimate relationships is that of natural law, it is this that which they buck against. Their love is not inferior to any love it is their actions that are sinful. Families? How does that happen?

 

[Rau]

The Catholic Church does not accept sin it admonishes it. The pressure they are under in regards to their intimate relationships is that of natural law, it is this that which they buck against. Their love is not inferior to any love it is their actions that are sinful. Families? How does that happen?

I was not advocating for the cause, just telling you how I believe homosexuals typically view their situation.

A same sex couple may produce a family through adoption or surrogacy.

 

[Lochias]

I was not advocating for the cause, just telling you how I believe homosexuals typically view their situation.

A same sex couple may produce a family through adoption or surrogacy.

But two fathers can never give a child the mother that a child deserves, and vice-versa. Such a family will always be inherently flawed in its ability to raise children correctly.