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

[Rau]

…Procreation, though far from unimportant, is not the major purpose of marriage according to Jewish teaching, while love and companionship between partners are.

But the question appears to remain open as to whether the sexual faculties have a role in a same sex ‘marriage’, given the inherent lack of biological compatibility of 2 men.

 

[meltzerboy]

But the question appears to remain open as to whether the sexual faculties have a role in a same sex ‘marriage’, given the inherent lack of biological compatibility of 2 men.

To whom does the question remain open? Not to Catholicism or Judaism; maybe to the secular world. How about two women, BTW: do you think it is all right for them to love each other in the context of marriage? No procreation between them, of course, but no biological incompatibility at the cellular level either.

 

[EasterJoy]

I cannot speak for any religion except Judaism, and even here I have far from a thorough rabbinical or scholarly understanding of the entire rationale underpinning acceptance of gay marriage according to Reform as well as Conservative Judaism. According to the latter movements, celibacy is not a virtue as it is according to the Church. An unmarried man or woman is regarded as “incomplete” in Judaism, particularly if they happen to be a rabbi, and this is also, perhaps especially, true in Torah (Orthodox) Judaism. It is thus believed, though not in Torah Judaism, that a man or woman would be advised to enter into a same-sex marriage to avoid being celibate and also to avoid being promiscuous since promiscuity is equally frowned upon in Judaism. Be aware, however, that this cursory explanation constitutes only the rudiments of Jewish teaching in this regard. BTW, the Torah does not explicitly forbid female homosexual behavior, only male homosexual behavior, so that Torah Jews must incorporate other passages from the Hebrew Bible to forbid all homosexuality. Some Hebrew scholars would even argue that the Law does not forbid ANY homosexuality at all, that is, if one pays close attention to the meaning of the text according to both the Hebrew language and its context. The latter argument is debatable. While the Torah is based on both faith and reason, it is not based on biology. Procreation, though far from unimportant, is not the major purpose of marriage according to Jewish teaching, while love and companionship between partners are.

“Though not according to Torah Judaism” being the operative qualification. Nobody can remotely find today’s rationalizations going on until very recent generations. Rabbis did not ever officiate at same sex unions in past ages. By what mental gymnastics is it supposed that these same rabbis would “advise” a marriage they wouldn’t recognize?

 

[Rau]

To whom does the question remain open? Not to Catholicism or Judaism; maybe to the secular world. How about two women, BTW: do you think it is all right for them to love each other in the context of marriage? No procreation between them, of course, but no biological incompatibility at the cellular level either.

Open in that you didn’t explain how / why two men ejaculating semen together makes any sense given the sole purpose of that semen can never be fulfilled, regardless of the intent and perfect health of the participants.

The brokenness of sex between 2 men is especially obvious. But one can make a similar rationale with 2 women.

 

[EasterJoy]

I cannot speak for any religion except Judaism, and even here I have far from a thorough rabbinical or scholarly understanding of the entire rationale underpinning acceptance of gay marriage according to Reform as well as Conservative Judaism. According to the latter movements, celibacy is not a virtue as it is according to the Church. An unmarried man or woman is regarded as “incomplete” in Judaism, particularly if they happen to be a rabbi, and this is also, perhaps especially, true in Torah (Orthodox) Judaism. It is thus believed, though not in Torah Judaism, that a man or woman would be advised to enter into a same-sex marriage to avoid being celibate and also to avoid being promiscuous since promiscuity is equally frowned upon in Judaism. Be aware, however, that this cursory explanation constitutes only the rudiments of Jewish teaching in this regard. BTW, the Torah does not explicitly forbid female homosexual behavior, only male homosexual behavior, so that Torah Jews must incorporate other passages from the Hebrew Bible to forbid all homosexuality. Some Hebrew scholars would even argue that the Law does not forbid ANY homosexuality at all, that is, if one pays close attention to the meaning of the text according to both the Hebrew language and its context. The latter argument is debatable. While the Torah is based on both faith and reason, it is not based on biology. Procreation, though far from unimportant, is not the major purpose of marriage according to Jewish teaching, while love and companionship between partners are.

“Though not according to Torah Judaism” being the operative qualification. Nobody can remotely find today’s rationalizations going on until very recent generations. Rabbis did not ever officiate at same sex unions in past ages. By what mental gymnastics is it supposed that these same rabbis would “advise” a marriage they wouldn’t recognize?

 

[holyrood]

I did not bring up the topic of abortion in the first place. I responded to comments and questions by Lochias and PRmerger. I finally explained the Jewish teaching on abortion and did not bring up the topic after that.

My point is: it’s a little disingenuous to discuss a topic yourself, and then inform others you ‘don’t want to debate’ that topic. If you bring it into the discussion, then you need to be prepared to have that discussion, regarding if or how it relates to the debate at hand.

 

[meltzerboy]

My point is: it’s a little disingenuous to discuss a topic yourself, and then inform others you ‘don’t want to debate’ that topic. If you bring it into the discussion, then you need to be prepared to have that discussion, regarding if or how it relates to the debate at hand.

As stated, I explained the teaching of Judaism with regard to abortion, which I abide by. Further, I have learned the hard way that there is very little room for discussion on a Catholic Forum concerning the topic of abortion. Such discussions soon become heated arguments. Therefore, having already explained the Jewish perspective, I prefer to refrain from further “discussion.” Besides, this is not even the appropriate thread to prolong any kind of debate on the issue.

 

[meltzerboy]

“Though not according to Torah Judaism” being the operative qualification. Nobody can remotely find today’s rationalizations going on until very recent generations. Rabbis did not ever officiate at same sex unions in past ages. By what mental gymnastics is it supposed that these same rabbis would “advise” a marriage they wouldn’t recognize?

The nature of the Law makes it open to interpretation, including recent interpretation, since there are elements within it that seem to predict future scientific changes and advances. That is also why Judaism consists of the Oral Law (Talmud) in addition to the Written Law (Torah). The Talmud is designed for the voicing of learned and rabbinical perspectives based on the Written Law but needing to be updated in light of modern changes and advances in science, technology, and culture. Torah Judaism itself is well aware of this.

 

[EasterJoy]

The nature of the Law makes it open to interpretation, including recent interpretation, since there are elements within it that seem to predict future scientific changes and advances. That is also why Judaism consists of the Oral Law (Talmud) in addition to the Written Law (Torah). The Talmud is designed for the voicing of learned and rabbinical perspectives based on the Written Law but needing to be updated in light of modern changes and advances in science, technology, and culture. Torah Judaism itself is well aware of this.

This sounds very much like what a progressive Catholic would say about what the Church teaches, which indicates that there are people who believe in God who actually think like this. Still, something makes me doubt that Maimonides, even knowing what we know now, would share these interpretations. We can never know that, of course, but I think the blanket assumptions that all past ages would think like we do if they only knew the facts we know (that we imagine they could not have imagined) underestimates them mightily. In the case of the Christians, at least, it was predicted that all sorts of people would indeed come along and say they had wisdom that allowed them to set aside the morality of the past. The point of all these predictions was that those who are wise won’t believe those pretending this new wisdom for a minute.

 

[Lochias]

You are lifting my comment from its context, which offers a possible unselfish reason for abortion.

There is no possible “unselfish reason” for abortion, anymore than there is a square circle.

 

[EasterJoy]

To whom does the question remain open? Not to Catholicism or Judaism; maybe to the secular world. How about two women, BTW: do you think it is all right for them to love each other in the context of marriage? No procreation between them, of course, but no biological incompatibility at the cellular level either.

What do you mean, no biological incompatibility? They do not enjoy sexual complementarity in the physical sense, which is what is meant by biological compatibility.

At any rate, I fail to see how anyone can look at the Christian tradition and see some foggy area with regards to homosexual partnerships. Partnerships of mutual care, yes, but that does not change the nature of the sexual acts any more than a personal relationship changes other otherwise immoral sexual acts. Adultery or fornication with your “soul mate” is gravely wrong, just as adultery or fornication with a total stranger is. Likewise, homosexual acts remain disordered even when the two engaging in them have a personal relationship that is laudatory in every other respect. The fall may be more understandable than with a stranger, but it is still a fall.

This is post #448?!? I’m willing to call it a thread…you others can finish up.

 

[stewstew03]

…
You still don’t get it. The Church didn’t just “oppose a particular behavior.” They supported criminal penalties for that behavior. Ergo, they do think people should be imprisoned. If they say otherwise they are either lying or incredibly stupid, because they are on record supporting the laws that impose those penalties.

And your argument is still rife with non-sequiturs. Where is the evidence that the Church, vis-a-vis Lawrence, supported imprisonment for those engaged in homosexual behavior? ** It simply doesn’t exist**. Not only would you have to prove that the Church supported the passage of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, you would have to also demonstrate that the Church lobbied for stricter punishment (other than a fine for committing a Class C misdemeanor).

You sound smart. Now you just need to start making sense.

 

[kolya111]

As for “You can argue that man-man is not as good as man-woman for the kids, but even then a state that allows children to be adopted by single men and woman can hardly be justified in denying them to two men or two women”, you’re making an excellent case for why marriage shouldn’t get any recognition or advantages from the state at all, not a case for why gays ought to be able to marry. If marriage has nothing to do with procreation or being there to personally parent the children one begets, to live to help parent one’s children’s children, then what business does the state have to give people a tax break because they have a sexual partner? Why isn’t it, “You have a sex partner? Well, how nice for you. That has nothing to do with us.” I tell you, if marriage does not have to do with procreation, then there is no reason it ought to have to do with sex. It doesn’t even make sense.

I saw that you’ve left the thread, so I’ll keep this brief - the fact that political marriage has nothing to do with procreation is a substantiation of the pro-gay-marriage position (if this political union is meaningless, as you seem to say, then why deny it to the gays?). We would be fine with de-recognition of all marriages by the State. Christians wove marriage into our shared civil code though; now they have to deal with the consequences. Your position seems to be “all of these other problems with marriage are bad, this far and no further!” In a (supposedly) equal-rights society, it doesn’t work that way.

*Human freedom is not a matter of minimal regulation, but the maximal ability to avoid what is wrong and do what is good! *

Freedom, as I use it, is the power to speak, act, and do as one wills without restraint. The Catholic use of the word that you refer to is a corruption that doesn’t even make spiritual sense - God willed that men have this “power to act”, as I and 99% of humanity defines it, even if it leads to sin. A robot can be programmed to sweep the street all day, and therefore do only good and never evil, but we would hardly call it free.
EasterJoy;11477326:

This is post #448?!? I’m willing to call it a thread…you others can finish up.

It has been a pleasant conversation, thank you!

 

[Rau]

… the fact that political marriage has nothing to do with procreation is a substantiation of the pro-gay-marriage position (if this political union is meaningless, as you seem to say, then why deny it to the gays?). We would be fine with de-recognition of all marriages by the State. Christians wove marriage into our shared civil code though; now they have to deal with the consequences. Your position seems to be “all of these other problems with marriage are bad, this far and no further!” In a (supposedly) equal-rights society, it doesn’t work that way.

Bizarre…and elsewhere in the thread we read the claim that gay “marriage” is ALL about state provided rights (inheritance, hospital visitation right, etc), which are currently denied gay couples, and here you say there is no need for state recognition of Marriage or “gay marriage”! It sounds like the bottom line is that what goes for Married couples should go for gay couples, that the State has no business seeing a difference, and the obvious differences be damned! Is that the bottom line?

I’m not aware of any adverse consequences arising from state recognition of Marriage. You and others have argued that gay couples ought to be able to avail themselves of certain rights because they are a “couple”. But you’ve not expressed any reason why those relationship ought to be termed “marriage”. Indeed, those relationships could logically extend to groups of more than 2 persons, to familial participants and so on. And those relationships need not be sexual.

I conclude that the pro-gay lobby is no yet clear on what it seeks, and the rationale for it.

 

[EasterJoy]

I saw that you’ve left the thread, so I’ll keep this brief - the fact that political marriage has nothing to do with procreation is a substantiation of the pro-gay-marriage position (if this political union is meaningless, as you seem to say, then why deny it to the gays?). We would be fine with de-recognition of all marriages by the State. Christians wove marriage into our shared civil code though; now they have to deal with the consequences. Your position seems to be “all of these other problems with marriage are bad, this far and no further!” In a (supposedly) equal-rights society, it doesn’t work that way.

Freedom, as I use it, is the power to speak, act, and do as one wills without restraint. The Catholic use of the word that you refer to is a corruption that doesn’t even make spiritual sense - God willed that men have this “power to act”, as I and 99% of humanity defines it, even if it leads to sin. A robot can be programmed to sweep the street all day, and therefore do only good and never evil, but we would hardly call it free.

It has been a pleasant conversation, thank you!

Yes, it has been so absorbing I have let it go on and on! You are kind not to be bored.

An addict in recovery can tell you that the freedom to act without restraint includes the freedom to act without the restraint of the enslavement to self-destructive compulsions. To leave people so “free” that they are free to enslave themselves is to leave them loose to ruin. To steer people clear of their compulsions is freeing, not enslaving.

I can see where you might believe this doesn’t make sense from a secular viewpoint where the individual is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, but from a spiritual standpoint it has been widely held to make perfect sense. Spiritual freedom, once investigated, unvaryingly includes adherence to a practice, not removal of all outside rules.

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted. Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your nature. For just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 6:16-23

*The law of the LORD is perfect,
refreshing the soul.
The decree of the LORD is trustworthy,
giving wisdom to the simple.

The precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart.
The command of the LORD is clear,
enlightening the eye.

The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The statutes of the LORD are true,
all of them just;

More desirable than gold,
than a hoard of purest gold,
Sweeter also than honey
or drippings from the comb.

By them your servant is warned;
obeying them brings much reward.*

Psalm 19:8-12

This view is not restricted to the theistic spiritual thinkers, either:

When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit ‘I am,’ and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma. (The Sammaditthi Sutta)

I will leave you to the last word this time…really!!!

 

[Scoochy]

No. He wouldn’t accept that two people of the same sex would be “married”. Two people of the same sex could live together, but only in a celibate way. Sex is NOT a necessity.

 

[CaliLobo]

Sorry I’ve just been incredibly busy with life, but I still feel compelled to respond to some of these postings. I am taking another bar exam so I am busy, but I will try my best to participate in CAF still. Merry Christmas!

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? **

josh987654321:

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.

Because CIVIL RIGHTS and EQUALITY are at stake. Because, as the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled recently, gay people are a minority that has been historically discriminated against. We cannot tolerate that discrimination, which “civil union” would continue to tolerate.
People have given their lives to fight for civil rights and equality, and people will continue to do so today.

Rau:

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?

Is procreation the ONLY purpose of sex?

EasterJoy:

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? …
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…

No. But modern social scientists have much more current data and relevance than yesterday’s Catholic tradition…

josh987654321:

We don’t need to talk about [the gay marriage political issue] 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…
What is your solution?

Why not learn from our Protestant Evangelical brothers and sisters? They understand politics doesn’t save us, and instead focus on missions, evangelism, teaching, Bible reading, and personal relationships with God. They have dynamic speakers, rock bands, video editing, and many events to engage with the people. They do not talk about the gay marriage political issue all the time. Evangelical churches allow for one to vote one’s conscience. ** Ironically, Evangelicals are more likely to agree with the Vatican on the gay marriage issue…**

Listen to your Pope when he says that ideologues in the Church are a serious illness:
alternet.org/pope-francis-ideological-christians-are-serious-illness
It’s very clear he wants to change the Church…

How to change it? Here’s an idea among many. Instead of advocating for RESTRICTIONS on the civil rights of gays, how about this series from an Evangelical speaker that examines sexual purity in a different way? That speaks about restoring masculinity and femininity? It’s geared toward women but men can learn from it. Admire how fresh and relevant this speaker is…
youtube.com/watch?v=UBDQxpFBryA
What is the Catholic Church doing to directly engage with the people about sexual purity? Where are the engaging speakers? Besides the convoluted Humanae Vitae?

If you still don’t get it, here’s a flowchart that summarizes my beliefs about the gay marriage issue well:
upworthy.com/if-you-dont-believe-in-gay-marriage-see-this-chart-if-you-do-believe-in-gay-marr
The original language of the NT actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships. Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said women should be silent and never assume authority over a man.

kolya111:

I saw that you’ve left the thread, so I’ll keep this brief - the fact that political marriage has nothing to do with procreation is a substantiation of the pro-gay-marriage position (if this political union is meaningless, as you seem to say, then why deny it to the gays?). We would be fine with de-recognition of all marriages by the State

Yes. I too am okay with the Ron Paul position, to get the government out of marriage.

 

[josh987654321]

.

May I ask you, what is marriage?

& Merry Christmas to you also

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[CaliLobo]

May I ask you, what is marriage?

& Merry Christmas to you also

I hear Christmas is a beach day in Australia? I bet it’s probably too crowded though. Today was almost a beach day in my hometown of Los Angeles (sunny and 23 C).

What is marriage? That’s the thing. It depends on each individual, as we are all different right? How can a secular government impose a Christian definition of marriage? And why should it do so, when we know that the places that have allowed for gay marriage rights have done quite nicely and have high standards of living?

We know that in the USA, the red states, despite being more “Christian”, have less marriages, more divorces, more out-of-wedlock births, and take in more government aid. The blue states, most of which allow gay marriages, have higher standards of living…

(And as I said before, it’s not fully clear that the Bible speaks against committed gay relationships; the issue is contentious…)

 

[josh987654321]

I hear Christmas is a beach day in Australia? I bet it’s probably too crowded though. Today was almost a beach day in my hometown of Los Angeles (sunny and 23 C).

Yea it’s hot round here on Christmas.

What is marriage? That’s the thing. It depends on each individual, as we are all different right?

If marriage can mean anything, than would it actually mean something? that’s why I said in one of my other posts, I believe if marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it would mean nothing. I believe it’s like the idea of moral relativism, If morality is relative, than really there is no morality, just mere opinion enforced by might.

Is there such a thing as truth? as when Jesus said to Pilate *“I came to speak of the truth and all of thsoe who belong to the truth know my voice.” *he replied *“what is truth?” *because he was afraid to see it, because truth implies obligation, truth implies commitment, truth makes demands, once we acknowledge the truth, living with the status quo become much harder.

I believe the truth will set us free and that it’s better to be awakened by a hard truth than put to sleep by a seductive lie.

Thus the question that comes to mind, is there a design for sexuality? did God design two distinct sexes, a man and a woman? did he design the complementarity and compatibility between the two hence the reproductive system? the compatibility between a man and womans reproductive oragans?

How can a secular government impose a Christian definition of marriage?

In that case, how can a secular government impose any definition of marriage?

And why should it do so, when we know that the places that have allowed for gay marriage rights have done quite nicely and have high standards of living?

We know that in the USA, the red states, despite being more “Christian”, have less marriages, more divorces, more out-of-wedlock births, and take in more government aid. The blue states, most of which allow gay marriages, have higher standards of living…

What does high standards of living have to do with it? The Jews and especially the Son of God didn’t have high standards of living, Caesar and the Romans did though.

(And as I said before, it’s not fully clear that the Bible speaks against committed gay relationships; the issue is contentious…)

Did God create a man and a woman? is there a design for sexuality?
New Testament:

Matthew 19:4-6

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:6-9

6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Thank you for reading
Josh