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

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

I believe Peter Plato said it well in regards to civil same sex marriage on another thread in which I would just like to repeat for people here -

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.

Not even the science community could advocate equality between the two without losing all professional credibility, one quick study of the genatalia, biology 101 or our reproductive system, will tell you that it’s wrong and clearly not the same, I don’t believe it’s rocket science, I find the whole “same sex marriage” argument is simply a nonsense that isn’t guided by any reason whatsoever.

I don’t have anything against my homosexual brothers and sisters, but this same sex marriage argument is just a nonsense, it completely ignores the human anatomy and the obvious differences between a man and a woman, their compatibility and complementarity with one another. It’s like telling us to literally recognise women as men for equality sake I believe.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[holyrood]

I try to see God in all people. What they are or are not doing in private is between them (their confessor) and God. If the state wishes to make money off granting them marriage licenses, that’s the state’s business. I don’t foresee the Catholic church sanctifying those marriages anytime soon so there really is no threat. Sanctifying gay marriages in a church seems inappropriate to me.

I see you’re fairly new. Welcome to CAF.

I don’t mean any disrespect, but have you not seen that what homosexuals are doing in private is NOT being kept between them, their confessor, and God? And it’s not because I’m going into anyone’s home looking. This behavior is becoming more and more public, being forced on our children via schools and books in public libraries, characters on sitcoms and in movies, political movements, lawsuits, destroying people’s reputations and livelihoods if they so much as disapprove of it…and more.

Sanctifying a marriage in church may seem inappropriate to you, but you realize that once it’s forced into being as the legal definition of marriage, churches will be accused of ‘discrimination’ for refusing to sanctify homosexual unions in the church, with a full sacramental Mass. Churches will be sued and financially destroyed. We’re already watching it happen to florists, bakers, and photographers who don’t wish to take part in these sham ceremonies.

The problem here is exactly that it is NOT remaining a private matter, but being forced on society.

 

[CaliLobo]

josh987654321:

May I ask you what is marriage? and how do we recognise it equally?

We need to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage, because the former is the role of government, and the latter is the role of the church. According to MarriageEqualityUSA, civil marriage is:

Marriage Is:
•Ultimately, civil marriage is a basic civil right as well as a private and public commitment of love and support by adult couples.
•Civil marriage involves the obtaining and signing of a civil marriage license, which is issued by local government - the couple is entering into a civil contract.
•In personal terms, marriage is usually a celebration of love and commitment.
•It means others can recognize the commitment the couple has made to one another.
•The choice of whether or not to marry is a personal decision, made by two adults.

Civil marriage also provides a gateway to over 1,000 federal protections, responsibilities and benefits as well as many more provided by your state. It lets a spouse make decisions about the medical care of a partner who is disabled. It enables the couple to organize their financial affairs as a single unit for economic, tax and insurance purposes.

Marriage Is Not:
•Marriage is not about procreation. Millions of couples choose not to or are unable to have children.
•Marriage is not an institution chosen by every couple.
•Marriage is not a religious institution, but a civil one. Although churches and synagogues do perform religious ceremonies, the government distinguishes the religious from the civil by requiring the signing of a marriage certificate, if that is what the couple chooses to do.
•Marriage is not the same as a civil union, and vice versa.

The Catholic Church doesn’t tell people how to vote either, we are also told to vote according to our own consciences.

The thing is that we should vote on an informed conscience, because if someone from your Church was supporting abortion with great zeal and said they were doing it according to their conscience, what would you think? I would say that their conscience needs some serious informing, wouldn’t you agree?

I don’t wish to tell you how to vote, I simply wish to inform your conscience on this issue.

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.

I am voting with an informed conscience that has been taught by Jesus to love our neighbors. I agree with the posts by Irishgal49:

“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?”

And Chizzywinks:

…and as far as others saying it’s wrong for us to want our children to be happy…that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard in my life! Any random person who happens to read this thread and sees that sentiment repeated would think that Catholics are seriously warped. Yes, I know true happiness comes from within. But how can it be wrong to want our children to be happy? To be loved, have a roof over his head, food in his belly, a decent education, parents who love and support and encourage him, make him feel safe, and YES, want to see him smiling and HAPPY? YES, I WANT MY SONS TO BE HAPPY! And if one of my sons finds love and HAPPINESS with a man…as much as I may not like it…if it brings him joy in his heart, then I have to support and accept it.
…
The Bible has been translated so many times. I know that a lot has been lost in translation and has probably been skewed to fit the moralistic beliefs of men of the time of those translations. The greatest rule is “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind.” and " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self".

I think we ALL need to remember that. THAT is the bottom line, folks. Stop with the hating, the condeming, the preaching and just start trying to uphold that commandment. It doesn’t say to exclude gays or anyone else. THAT IS THE WORD OF OUR LORD.

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 believe God is not only God for those who believe in him, this is a truth reflected in religion and nature itself, one quick study of the genetalia (biology 101) will tell you that it’s wrong. I don’t believe it’s rocket science.

And for those who say it is natural because it’s practiced among animals, than I would also like to say that some animals also eat their own young, but I would be very surprised if people wanted to jump on the band wagon and say that was natural too.

Sex and sexuality are not just a matter of anatomy itself. They are a function of four continuous variables: assigned gender upon birth, gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression. A quick search on Google Scholar will provide sources.

 

[CaliLobo]

josh987654321:

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.

It’s not just about anatomy. It’s about the four continuous (not discrete) variables of assigned gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, that work together to form one’s individual sex and sexuality. This is science, not the dogma you’re holding onto.

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.

Homosexuality is a consensual act and thus why it isn’t criminalized, nor is anyone arguing for it to be made illegal, same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union. If I were arguing to criminalize sodomy or something, than I would completely understand your point, but same sex marriage isn’t about that.

I believe Rau said it well -

Please, educate yourselves instead of holding onto dogma. Google “why civil unions are not enough” and you will find several sites that explain. There are 1138 federal benefits that gay couples are denied.
Try this link: thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/fact_sheets/WhyCivilUnionsAreNotEnough.pdf
And this: data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_civil-unions-are-not-enough.pdf

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?

We can “love the sinner but hate the sin” by preaching that gay sex is a sin, but not denying their civil rights, because after all gays are human and therefore equal to straights.

We need to recognize that denying their civil rights has left gays to feel rejected by the Church.

We need to recognize that politics doesn’t save us and therefore doesn’t matter. The primary mission of the Church should be the Great Commission. The CC has lost this. That is why Francis has said that “we do not need to talk about these things [political issues] all the time”.

We are, fortunately, seeing signs of change in the CC under Francis.

In addition, the idea that the Bible forbids homosexuality is contentious. Leviticus was for the Jews living at the time. If we really wanted to follow Leviticus, why do I see Christians with tattoos and shaved heads? A logical inconsistency. It is also possible that the New Testament forbids pederasty and temple prostitution, not gay adult relationships.

Why would you make such a statement?

Because it’s true. Ask gay people why they don’t come to church.

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?

Oppress: keep (someone) in subjection and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.

What exactly are we doing to keep them in subjection and hardship?

Really? You’re just asking this just to be difficult. You know what some Christians are trying to ban. You know how this ban causes hardship. Read the links I posted above about what benefits are being denied.

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?

See link in previous post for a definition of marriage.

Would you say the same thing about pedophilia?

No. Pedophilia has child victims. Gay marriages are between consenting adults.

There are people who have all kinds of immoral desires, but just because we desire something does that make it right to act on? should we all just wrecklessly give into our every desire throw our hands up in the air and say “If God didn’t want me to do this than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it?”

I am not saying that the Church should stop preaching that gay sex is a sin. Rather, I am saying that the Church has lost its way by insisting on political, legal bans on recognition of gay marriage rights, for reasons I’ve explained several times.

…
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.

No, it is a scientific fact that there are many that blur the lines in the variables of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

 

[CaliLobo]

You’ve not answered my question - what is the “definition of marriage”?

And what “legal rights” are you advocating that gay couples, polygamous groups, etc. ought to have access to, but don’t?

What “secular civil rights” are you referring to (by stating that the Church seeks to deny these to gays)?

See my previous post re: definition of marriage and the 1138 federal benefits that are being denied.

How do Christians seek to “impose” their views on anyone? Do we have any civil authority beyond a right to free speech?

In a secular government and society, not everyone is Christian. For Christians to use the political process to pass laws that are compatible to them, but not others, is in effect to impose their values on nonbelievers. It forces nonbelievers to make modifications to their lifestyles that they do not wish to make, and comply with religious values that they do not believe in. It is therefore oppressive and unloving.

Gay people are naturally that way. To say that gay marriages should not be recognized is offensive to who gay people naturally are, that they are not allowed to have the same privileges and benefits of life that straight people have. To say that they can just marry someone else of the same gender would be like asking a straight person to be in a gay relationship–that’s offensive. Therefore, the political involvement of the church to support SSM bans is hate speech.

 

[CaliLobo]

Not even the science community could advocate equality between the two without losing all professional credibility, one quick study of the genatalia, biology 101 or our reproductive system, will tell you that it’s wrong and clearly not the same, I don’t believe it’s rocket science, I find the whole “same sex marriage” argument is simply a nonsense that isn’t guided by any reason whatsoever.

I don’t have anything against my homosexual brothers and sisters, but this same sex marriage argument is just a nonsense, it completely ignores the human anatomy and the obvious differences between a man and a woman, their compatibility and complementarity with one another. It’s like telling us to literally recognise women as men for equality sake I believe.

No. Secular scientists today have updated knowledge of what is sex and sexuality, as I have described earlier. So, for scientists to support SSM is in line with the latest research, and therefore, boosts their credibility. It is you that is holding onto yesterday’s dogma.

 

[josh987654321]

No. Secular scientists today have updated knowledge of what is sex and sexuality, as I have described earlier. So, for scientists to support SSM is in line with the latest research, and therefore, boosts their credibility. It is you that is holding onto yesterday’s dogma.

So the human anatomy of a man and a woman doesn’t matter anymore? the sexual compatiblity and complementarity shared between a man and a woman due to their anatomy is now irrelevant? our reproductive system is just some freak of nature that can be “worked around” nowdays and doesn’t need to be made sense of?

I guess I am just holding on to Dogma when I try to make sense of the human antomy of a man and a woman.

thanks for clearing that up for me, it all makes so much sense now

lol, No offense CaliLobo, but how do you make sense of the human anatomy, sex and sexuality? anything goes?

I’ll try and get to the rest of your posts when I get time, thanks for the replies though.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rau]

We need to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage, **because **the former is the role of government, and the latter is the role of the church.

There is one society. Why do we need two types of “Marriage”? Marriage is **the **logical framework through which the society builds. The legal rights came along in support of that purpose. Marriage is intrinsically sexual. It is clearly unique in its nature.

The institution which you seek for same sex partners is of a mostly different character. The society may find it appropriate to create such an institution, for the benefit & comfort of a subset of the society. If the society wishes to make that institution available to same sex couples (but apparently not to trios etc.?), in order to:

• agree certain legal rights can be conferred;
• to afford the participants a forum to promulgate their commitment;
• a means to define their relationship

so be it. Presumably this will deliver all the (so claimed) civil rights that you say any pair of persons executing this contract ought to be able to access.

**But why on earth would you call such an institution, which is marked by such notable differences from Marriage, by the same name? **

Your description of “civil marriage” is not of an intrinsically sexual institution. Do you consider sex in such an institution to be a natural occurrence, as a consequence of the love the pair share, or no more relevant in that context than between any random pair (group?) of persons?

 

[Rau]

No. Secular scientists today have updated knowledge of what is sex and sexuality, as I have described earlier. So, for scientists to support SSM is in line with the latest research, and therefore, boosts their credibility. It is you that is holding onto yesterday’s dogma.

Does it not seem odd that (male) homosexual sex involves the emission of a fluid whose **ONLY **purpose is to join with an egg in the body of a female, yet in **every single instance **of emission (in a same sex context), regardless of intent, despite the perfect health of all the participants, nothing can come of it?

Scientists can offer explanation of why gay persons may be attracted to others of the same sex, and of other gender-related issues. No argument there. But a sexual relationship of this kind makes no sense, by reason of fundamental incompatibility of the participants.

And as per your earlier posts, “civil (same sex) marriage” is not a sexual institution by your definition.

 

[EasterJoy]

No. Secular scientists today have updated knowledge of what is sex and sexuality, as I have described earlier. So, for scientists to support SSM is in line with the latest research, and therefore, boosts their credibility. It is you that is holding onto yesterday’s dogma.

Do you really believe that secular scientists can investigate what they want and conclude what it the most sensible conclusion with no political repercussions? You cannot possibly be that naïve. Do you give rocket scientists the same carte blanche to set social standards as you give to the medical researchers? Why ever not? How about the petroleum engineers and the geologists, the people who research mining? Aren’t they experts, people who have done research and know better than you what humankind ought to do?

This idea of gay marriage comes out of the same society that thought that no-fault divorce would be a panacea to treat bad marriages. This is the same society that is now beginning to treat childbearing as if it were animal husbandry, the begetting of children not far removed from the begetting of puppies and racehorses. People go that far, and consider using a surrogate (that is, begetting the child with the plan of taking him or her from the mother immediately after birth) as no abuse of parental authority. They will select semen donors like a breeder selecting a sire for a mare. If you can employ a surrogate to bear the child and likewise can select a sperm donor to supply the contribution of a male who will never even meet the child, if it is proposed that young that are not “wanted” ought to be exterminated for their own good and unintended multiple pregnancies from IVF ought to be “reduced”, how different are we treating people than we treat valuable animals? What “research” supported all those societal changes? What makes you think the “professionals” willing to do all of this for paying patients ought to have charge of determining right from wrong?

Forgive me if I do not find them so credible as you do. A dogma that changes with a shift in the wind is not a dogma. It is a fashion.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

Okay, but why would Christians vote for it? why would any Christian advocate it? that’s what I don’t understand.

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 -

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.

Please continue to next post -

Why would Christians vote for it? My state actually had the opposite. They wanted to make an extra law against. It seemed to be mean spirited to me. There was already a sufficient law on the books. I don’t remember if it passed. When voting, there are many more factors that should be considered, such as: is the law fair, is it redundant, is it well-written, is it expensive, is it necessary, etc… I’ll vote for well written and necessary laws.

No, I don’t support gay marriages, but I try to ignore the rhetoric and baiting comments from extremists and try to remember to hate the sin, not the sinner. it shouldn’t be ‘us’ against ‘them’. I think in terms of a sort of resolve rather than being too boisterous about it. Sure, there are very proud gay people that are in-your-face types. But there are also many people who might be still struggling quietly. If we are too offensive in our protests, those people may stay away from the church. Does that make any sense? I may not be explaining it well. The church should welcome all people, regardless. Whatever sins they have shouldn’t stop them from trying to return.

 

[josh987654321]

Why would Christians vote for it? My state actually had the opposite. They wanted to make an extra law against. It seemed to be mean spirited to me. There was already a sufficient law on the books. I don’t remember if it passed. When voting, there are many more factors that should be considered, such as: is the law fair, is it redundant, is it well-written, is it expensive, is it necessary, etc… I’ll vote for well written and necessary laws.

No, I don’t support gay marriages, but I try to ignore the rhetoric and baiting comments from extremists and try to remember to hate the sin, not the sinner. it shouldn’t be ‘us’ against ‘them’. I think in terms of a sort of resolve rather than being too boisterous about it. Sure, there are very proud gay people that are in-your-face types. But there are also many people who might be still struggling quietly. If we are too offensive in our protests, those people may stay away from the church. Does that make any sense? I may not be explaining it well. The church should welcome all people, regardless. Whatever sins they have shouldn’t stop them from trying to return.

Yes, it does make sense and I agree. I don’t have a problem with civil unions having the same legal rights, I simply have a problem with people wanting them to be recognised as equal, as a marriage, because I believe it’s like arguing for women to be recognised as men for equality sake, it’s one thing to treat them equally, but to recognise them as equal is just completely nonsense I believe.

Thank you
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

We need to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage, because the former is the role of government, and the latter is the role of the church.

Okay.

According to MarriageEqualityUSA, civil marriage is:

Marriage Is:
•Ultimately, civil marriage is a basic civil right as well as a private and public commitment of love and support by adult couples.

Why couples?

•Civil marriage involves the obtaining and signing of a civil marriage license, which is issued by local government - the couple is entering into a civil contract.

So why not just call it a “civil contract” if that’s all it is?

•In personal terms, marriage is usually a celebration of love and commitment.

Than I believe you have a long way to go in your fight for marriage equality.

•It means others can recognize the commitment the couple has made to one another.

Why can’t they do that with a civil union or civil contract?

•The choice of whether or not to marry is a personal decision, made by two adults.

Why not three? on what grounds would you refuse three brothers or sisters marriage?

Civil marriage also provides a gateway to over 1,000 federal protections, responsibilities and benefits as well as many more provided by your state. It lets a spouse make decisions about the medical care of a partner who is disabled. It enables the couple to organize their financial affairs as a single unit for economic, tax and insurance purposes.

I don’t have a problem with any of that, why can’t you give those same legal rights to civil unions? why argue for marriage?

Marriage Is Not:
•Marriage is not about procreation. Millions of couples choose not to or are unable to have children.

Okay.

•Marriage is not an institution chosen by every couple.

Okay.

•Marriage is not a religious institution, but a civil one. Although churches and synagogues do perform religious ceremonies, the government distinguishes the religious from the civil by requiring the signing of a marriage certificate, if that is what the couple chooses to do.

Are you saying that marriage is a civil insititution and religion has nothing to do with it?

•Marriage is not the same as a civil union, and vice versa.

Exactly, and a homosexual union is not the same as a heterosexual one, as to think that I believe you would have to completely ignore the human anatomy of a man and a woman, their complemetarity and compatibility with one another.

I am voting with an informed conscience that has been taught by Jesus to love our neighbors.

Okay.

I agree with the posts by Irishgal49:

“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?”

What did you get out of this? I am absolutely amazed at how many people are using Pope Francis’ words to justify their advocation of same sex marriage despite the clear teachings of the Church, who Pope Francis is head of.

And Chizzywinks:

…and as far as others saying (…Snip…) hold that commandment. It doesn’t say to exclude gays or anyone else. THAT IS THE WORD OF OUR LORD.

Could you please read the posts where we have answered these posts, thank you.

Sex and sexuality are not just a matter of anatomy itself. They are a function of four continuous variables: assigned gender upon birth, gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression. A quick search on Google Scholar will provide sources.

Sorry, but I don’t know what you are saying here. Could you explain this to me another way please?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

It’s not just about anatomy. It’s about the four continuous (not discrete) variables of assigned gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, that work together to form one’s individual sex and sexuality. This is science, not the dogma you’re holding onto.

Sorry but I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Is everything we desires right? should we all just wrecklessly give into our every desire, throw our hands up in the air and say “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it?”

I read on here that in one country, a man could simply say he was a woman, and they would legally have to take it as fact and update his drivers licence and all other official records to say the he was a woman, what do you think of that? because I think that sort of thing is just madness.

Please, educate yourselves instead of holding onto dogma. Google “why civil unions are not enough” and you will find several sites that explain. There are 1138 federal benefits that gay couples are denied.
Try this link: thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/fact_sheets/WhyCivilUnionsAreNotEnough.pdf
And this: data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_civil-unions-are-not-enough.pdf

Thank you for those links, I have not a single problem with civil unions having those same legal rights, why are you not fighting for that? why marriage?

We can “love the sinner but hate the sin” by preaching that gay sex is a sin, but not denying their civil rights, because after all gays are human and therefore equal to straights.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t wish to deny them their rights at all, I’m simply saying that it’s not a marriage, that you don’t recognise women as men for equality sake, because that would be ludicrous.

We need to recognize that denying their civil rights has left gays to feel rejected by the Church.

I don’t wish to deny anyone their civil rights.

We need to recognize that politics doesn’t save us and therefore doesn’t matter.

Polticis doesn’t save us but I believe they do matter.

The primary mission of the Church should be the Great Commission. The CC has lost this. That is why Francis has said that “we do not need to talk about these things [political issues] all the time”.

We don’t need to talk about it all the time but we do need to talk about it. Not talking about it at all would be like burying your head in the sand and hoping it all blows over. I believe it’s only wise to prepare an answer when your beliefs come under fire.

We are, fortunately, seeing signs of change in the CC under Francis.

What kind of changes are you thinking of?

In addition, the idea that the Bible forbids homosexuality is contentious. Leviticus was for the Jews living at the time. If we really wanted to follow Leviticus, why do I see Christians with tattoos and shaved heads? A logical inconsistency. It is also possible that the New Testament forbids pederasty and temple prostitution, not gay adult relationships.

That’s why i also quoted the new testament, when they asked jesus about marriage and he said “Haven’t you read that in the beginning the creator made a man and a woman?”

Because it’s true. Ask gay people why they don’t come to church.

What is your solution?

Really? You’re just asking this just to be difficult. You know what some Christians are trying to ban. You know how this ban causes hardship. Read the links I posted above about what benefits are being denied.

I did read those links and like I said, I have no problem with them having those legal rights.

See link in previous post for a definition of marriage.

Okay.

No. Pedophilia has child victims. Gay marriages are between consenting adults.

Exactly

You said

People increasingly understand that homosexuality is a normal trait that exists in about 5% of the population.

And I have pointed out that Pedophilia is also a trait that exists in about (don’t know the percentage) of the population.

So if you wish to use that as your argument, than you should understand that by using the “born that way” theory to justify it, you would be subconsciously also justifying pedophilia, in which there is no justification.

I am not saying that the Church should stop preaching that gay sex is a sin. Rather, I am saying that the Church has lost its way by insisting on political, legal bans on recognition of gay marriage rights, for reasons I’ve explained several times.

May I ask what do you believe we should be doing?

No, it is a scientific fact that there are many that blur the lines in the variables of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

Could you please clear them up for me?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[holyrood]

To say that gay marriages should not be recognized is offensive to who gay people naturally are… To say that they can just marry someone else of the same gender would be like asking a straight person to be in a gay relationship–that’s offensive.

Do you see the logical problem that would evolve with making our laws based on ‘I’m offended?’ Is “I’m offended” really a solid reason to overturn what is possibly the ONE thing that has been entirely consistent across every civilization in every corner of the world, in any faith system, throughout the entire history of mankind: that marriage by definition means people of the opposite sex.

I would also like to who in our society is deciding whose ‘offended-ness’ is more important. Why is X’s ‘offended-ness’ more important than Y’s ‘offended-ness?’

What I’m getting at, in case it’s not obvious, is that sooner or later, everybody’s offended-ness can’t all be accommodated. We need to base laws on the good of society and individuals, not on some political group ‘being offended.’

I think it’s also key to note here that for all those promising us the church will never be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for two homosexuals…it’s obvious that if ‘I’m offended’ means enough to change definitions and institutions that have stood throughout history, it’s certainly GOING to be the next step here, too: I’m offended that the Church won’t perform a marriage ceremony. It’s already happening to photographers, bakers, and florists who don’t wish to be part of these shams, and are being forced to either partake, or be destroyed.

Please, educate yourselves instead of holding onto dogma.

This is the kind of thing that is simply throwing around insults. It has no place here. That someone has a different conclusion from you does not mean they’re ‘uneducated’ or ‘holding onto dogma.’ (The insinuation behind that phrase always being mindlessly holding onto dogma.)

No. Pedophilia has child victims. Gay marriages are between consenting adults.

Marriage is never strictly about the two adults involved. (And of course, every argument for overhauling the definition of marriage regarding gender also applies to number, so we’re heading toward a place where it means any group of people, or perhaps any group of sentient beings, or perhaps simply any group.)

Marriage has been regulated throughout history because it does impact society. It is regarded by many as the very foundation of society. The laws and definitions we make creating ‘gay marriage’ out of whole cloth, where it has never existed in the history of mankind, do NOT just impact those ‘consenting adults’ directly involved.

 

[meltzerboy]

Does it not seem odd that (male) homosexual sex involves the emission of a fluid whose **ONLY **purpose is to join with an egg in the body of a female, yet in **every single instance **of emission (in a same sex context), regardless of intent, despite the perfect health of all the participants, nothing can come of it?

Scientists can offer explanation of why gay persons may be attracted to others of the same sex, and of other gender-related issues. No argument there. But a sexual relationship of this kind makes no sense, by reason of fundamental incompatibility of the participants.

And as per your earlier posts, “civil (same sex) marriage” is not a sexual institution by your definition.

The sexual relationship makes no biological sense for the purpose of procreation. But sex between humans is also an expression of love, companionship, and pleasure for the self and one’s partner. In this, homosexual sex does make sense.

 

[Lochias]

The sexual relationship makes no biological sense for the purpose of procreation. But sex between humans is also an expression of love, companionship, and pleasure for the self and one’s partner. In this, homosexual sex does make sense.

But you cannot separate it from it’s procreative aspect. It’s physically impossible.

 

[meltzerboy]

But you cannot separate it from it’s procreative aspect. It’s physically impossible.

Perhaps not according to the Church. However, in Judaism the main purpose of marriage is love and companionship whereas procreation is a strong secondary reason. And how about straight couples who cannot have children for medical reasons; many of them do not refrain from sexual relations. Or elderly people who are past child-bearing age?

 

[JimG]

Perhaps not according to the Church. However, in Judaism the main purpose of marriage is love and companionship whereas procreation is a strong secondary reason. And how about straight couples who cannot have children for medical reasons; many of them do not refrain from sexual relations. Or elderly people who are past child-bearing age?

As long as they are capable of marital intercourse, the union is naturally ordered to procreation. This is the case whether they engage in marital relations or not. The capacity must be there in order to enter into marriage. (And by capacity, I mean that they are not impotent. Sterility would not be a factor.)

 

[Lochias]

Perhaps not according to the Church.

No, according to biology.

However, in Judaism the main purpose of marriage is love and companionship whereas procreation is a strong secondary reason.

Okay. I’m not arguing a religious reason here, myself.

And how about straight couples who cannot have children for medical reasons; many of them do not refrain from sexual relations.

Those acts are still ordered towards procreation; you can’t fault someone for something that’s not their fault or willful choice. I’m not saying that the aspects of love and emotional bonding aren’t important, because they are; but they are important in the context of the procreative aspect, which advances and protects the species.

Or elderly people who are past child-bearing age?

Same.