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

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you always view logical questions in a debate as an attack? That’s a little telling, to be honest.

You asked Bell(name removed by moderator) “Why should we listen to what you have to say as right and proper?” But she had never said that her words should be given some special authority. Her words, like anyone’s words, should be listened to with respect and then evaluated.

Another way of putting this is that *your *words have no special authority either, even if what you say has to agree with the Church. It’s the Church that has authority – but of course, if someone denies the Church’s authority, we ought to convert the person, which we cannot do by appealing to the Church’s authority.

It’s worked for me in the past, though that’s not my explicit goal here. I’m trying to get her to think about where her logic is coming from, which is namely nowhere logical.

I respect that goal. But I didn’t see Bell(name removed by moderator) making any argument. If she wasn’t making an argument, then, by definition, she didn’t have to be logical. (Only arguments are logical, not claims).

I think you have a bigger problem with my questions than she does. Let’s talk about this: What’s made you jump into a question that wasn’t addressed to you with such vehemence?

I think the method of converting a person is of vital importance. Arguing with a person who isn’t seeking to argue strikes me as a bad method.

 

[Popefrancisfan]

No I do not

 

[daniden]

I know I’m late to this conversation, but I’d like to take this topic one step further. Even if you didn’t believe in the Bible or even you were an atheist, how can you still think that gay “marriage” and the acts that go with it, are right? As the OP stated, why would God bother to create us, male and female (or whoever/however an atheist believes humans came into existence)? I mean, sure, two men or two women can get “married” and have a child by going to either a sperm bank or go through an egg donor and surrogate, but looking at it purely scientifically and biologically, male and female bodies were created to fit perfectly together (not be graphic here) to create a child. How can you explain that? This is not to say that procreation is the only purpose of marriage, because I know that’s it’s also unitive, but still, you can NOT deny the biology here. Why are our organs made the way they are…very female and male specific?

 

[HandyAndy]

Welcome to the conversation daniden…nailed it!

Religion is merely supporting the factual, historic, scientific and biological evidence, concerning the workings of the human anatomy.
The marriage act between a man and a women is compatible with these findings…and is in direct conflict with that of a same sex relationship.
How can something so logical be so misrepresented and distorted?

 

[Lochias]

You asked Bell(name removed by moderator) “Why should we listen to what you have to say as right and proper?” But she had never said that her words should be given some special authority. Her words, like anyone’s words, should be listened to with respect and then evaluated.

And I did evaluate them, upon which I asked where her authority for that belief came from. It was a question, not an attack.

Another way of putting this is that *your *words have no special authority either, even if what you say has to agree with the Church. It’s the Church that has authority – but of course, if someone denies the Church’s authority, we ought to convert the person, which we cannot do by appealing to the Church’s authority.

…yes, you do appeal to the Church’s authority, because that authority can be ratified and verified. My words are the Church’s words, and the Church has verifiable, authentic authority.

I respect that goal. But I didn’t see Bell(name removed by moderator) making any argument. If she wasn’t making an argument, then, by definition, she didn’t have to be logical. (Only arguments are logical, not claims).

Opinions posted on these threads are not immune to examination and subsequent testing. That’s one of the points of these forums.

I think the method of converting a person is of vital importance. Arguing with a person who isn’t seeking to argue strikes me as a bad method.

No-one’s arguing here except you and I, and I’m done. Please stop pestering me on this, or at least continue to do so in PM. This is a phenomenal waste of time, and I won’t comment more on it in public.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No-one’s arguing here except you and I, and I’m done. Please stop pestering me on this, or at least continue to do so in PM. This is a phenomenal waste of time, and I won’t comment more on it in public.

I don’t think talking about how to evangelize people in a loving way is a phenomenal waste of time, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

 

[CaliLobo]

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.

Yes. Morality is relative, and there is no absolute truth. Rather, the “truth” is one’s interpretation of what you observe. The things you observe are true because internally, you believe them to be true.

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?

See my thread “Does what we know about transgender people throw a wrench at Catholic teaching on sex and marriage?” There, I discuss that gender is a matrix of four continuous, not discrete, variables:

1. Assigned gender upon birth
2. Sexual orientation
3. Gender identity
4. Gender expression

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

It is not. Rather, it is maintaining secularism, the way a secular government should do.

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.

High standards of living are an indicator of good governance, which leads to good economic, educational, and welfare systems. It means that these secular governments are doing something right.

PRMerger:

I have always been puzzled and bemused by this particular argument. How is not being able to marry the one you want a “civil rights” issue?

Because there is privacy in one’s sexual choices, and there is a right to privacy. There is a right to raise a family the way you wish. There is a right to associate freely. Because it is PROVEN that gay couples are capable of raising children, without any damage to the children. Because gays are a discriminated minority. Because they are BORN THAT WAY, and there is nothing they can do about it; it is NOT a disease. (Ok I’m out of breath…)

holyrood:

How can you possibly claim that the notion of marriage involving people of the opposite sex is a ‘Christian’ definition of marriage, when every single society in every single era, throughout the entire history of mankind, has unanimously defined marriage as involving a man and a woman. Perhaps more than one woman. Maybe in rare instances more than one man. BUT ALWAYS at least one male and one female. It is simply flat out untrue to claim that this is singularly Christian.

This argument WEAKENS Christian arguments against gay marriage rights. If we really support “traditional marriage”, then why don’t we legalize polygamy? In addition, gays have existed all throughout human history, and the Romans considered it normal to have same-sex as well as opposite-sex partners.

 

[CaliLobo]

Rau:

To what civil right do you refer? To what equality do you refer? Unjust discrimination is evil - but discriminating for just reason between things which are not the same is proper. Why do you think that “Civil Union” vs. Marriage is an unjust discrimination? A same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple are not the same thing. Does the union of same-sex couples serve to build the society in the way that Marriage does? The nature of the “union” each can contemplate is intrinsically different.

The civil right of marriage.

It is evident that gay relationships have the same dynamic as straight relationships. Some are stable, some are not. Some are loving, some are not. Some are promiscuous, some are not. They can divide property, raise children, and deal with rights of survivorship in the same way as straight relationships.

So if the dynamic is equal, why do you resist equality between gay and straight relationships???

Rau:

A heterosexual couple is not limited to having sex to produce a child. But, a heterosexual couple is able, subject to health, to create life. The complementarity of their sex organs and gametes is designed for this purpose, and subject to the operation of the natural fertility cycle, delivers that result with cooperating parents. Such complementarity would not be required were the purpose of a sex act to be strictly limited to the sharing of intimacy and affection. Since the latter is the limit of homosexual acts, is it not clear that the faculties used for that purpose by homosexual partners are in fact being misused?

No, it is not being misused. You are in error for thinking that sex is for creating life. It is not necessarily true, and it does not have to be true. Neither is it productive to force this definition on the rest of society. Not everyone believes sex is unitive AND procreative…

EasterJoy:

If the people aren’t remotely capable of begetting any children with each other, what business is it of the state if they are sexual partners or not? Why would marriage be something for the state to encourage over a non-sexual partnership of adults? Why just two people? It is one thing to encourage biological parents to remain in the same home together, to raise their own children with each other and to stick together into old age for the sake of the extended family, but when marriage is divorced from procreation, it is hard to argue in favor of special rights or status for the participants. The original reason for organizing the adult relationships around sexual partnerships is gone. This is particularly true when the state has no stomach for forbidding co-habitation of sexual partners without the benefit of marriage.

If marriage isn’t about parents sticking around to raise their own children with each other–and especially when marriage is open to no-fault divorce!–it becomes hard to defend the practice of giving advantages to sexual partners who decide to commit to their co-habitation in a “sort of permanent until we aren’t permanent” way. If the single people started going to court and objecting to the advantages of marriage as unfair to those who don’t marry, the institution as it is “evolving” in the secular sphere is going to be hard to defend. The Catholic idea of marriage makes sense as being in service to the greater community, but civil marriage is starting to stray from anything that serves anyone, not even the parties involved.

Yeah good point. I’m fine with the Ron Paul idea of getting the government out of marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

Because there is privacy in one’s sexual choices, and there is a right to privacy.

If it’s a privacy issue, then why isn’t there a vocal group demanding that they be able to commit adultery and sleep with whomever they desire?

And do you believe it’s a private matter for a coach and his student to have sex? Do you want that to be legal?

There is a right to raise a family the way you wish.

I’m pretty sure that’s not true. There was recently in the news a family that was charged with imprisoning their 2 daughters. That was what they wished to do (that is, the parents’ wishes). I’m pretty sure that what they did was illegal.

Because gays are a discriminated minority.

This is simply begging the question, Cali.

Because they are BORN THAT WAY, and there is nothing they can do about it; it is NOT a disease. (Ok I’m out of breath…)

We are all born with a predilection for that which isn’t good for us. Some people are born predisposed to alcoholism. What does it matter if someone is BORN THAT WAY?

Someone may be BORN with a predisposition to violence. I don’t see how that makes it a civil right to be violent.

 

[CaliLobo]

This thread can go on forever. But before it gets closed, can we reach agreement on a few points?

1. It is normal for a small percentage of the population to experience same sex attraction, and there is nothing they can do to change that;
2. There is no Bible verse on point that says that we must oppose gay marriage politically, for after all, the Bible predates democracy. The only Bible verse on point in this issue is to love your neighbor as you love yourself, and the gay community feels hated and discriminated by people who wish to deny them the equal civil right to marriage.
3. There is no absolute standard of morality, and therefore, marriage means different things to different people.
4. It is wrong for a secular government to impose a Christian definition of marriage.
5. Pope Francis said that we should not be talking about “these things” all the time. The Protestant and Evangelical churches, by allowing for political flexibility, are a good example of how a church can do very well without talking about “these things” all the time.
6. Evangelism is more important than advocating politically. Evangelism is the only way to change human behavior.
7. Because there is no Bible verse on point on this issue, it is very possible to be a faithful Christian and support gay marriage politically, as the Protestant and Evangelical churches are starting to recognize.
8. The stubbornness of the Catholic Church in holding onto tradition, which is based on yesterday’s dogma and not modern science and social science, is one reason why people are leaving the Catholic Church.

 

[HandyAndy]

So CaliLobo…Couldn’t find any writings in the Bible condemning homosexual activity???

ROFL!!!

 

[CaliLobo]

So CaliLobo…Couldn’t find any writings in the Bible condemning homosexual activity???

ROFL!!!

Your post is a knee-jerk reaction. You are confusing the issues.

I never said the Bible condemned homosexual activity. I said that the Bible does not say anything about how to vote politically on the gay marriage issue.

Protestants (including Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Evangelicals) understand this. They understand that personal life and politics are two different things.

Please read my posts more carefully.

 

[HandyAndy]

ROFL!!!

 

[gracepoole]

I struggle to accept a God who doesn’t accept gay marriage.

 

[HandyAndy]

…and I struggle to accept a law that uses smoke and mirrors to obtain approval for a disordered, perverted sexual act.
At least a heterosexual relationship can be given the benefit of the doubt, that the right thing is being done. Same sex leaves NO doubt. Any law approving of such a relationship is in effect sanctioning a disordered sexual activity.

 

[josh987654321]

I struggle to accept a God who doesn’t accept gay marriage.

Why?

 

[josh987654321]

Yes. Morality is relative, and there is no absolute truth. Rather, the “truth” is one’s interpretation of what you observe. The things you observe are true because internally, you believe them to be true.

Okay.

5 + 5 = 22

See my thread “Does what we know about transgender people throw a wrench at Catholic teaching on sex and marriage?” There, I discuss that gender is a matrix of four continuous, not discrete, variables:

1. Assigned gender upon birth
2. Sexual orientation
3. Gender identity
4. Gender expression

How does it throw a spanner in the works? there is not one person who does not suffer from some kind of immoral desire, does the morality of the act change simply because of how much we desire it? should we all recklessly 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.”

1. 1. and 4. don’t change 1.

It is not. Rather, it is maintaining secularism, the way a secular government should do.

So is any unions someone at any whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage a valid claim? wouldn’t a secular government be required to legalise every union someone wished to call a marriage at any whim or fancy? otherwise it’s no longer “accommodating everyone” is it? and once civil marriage can become anything, pretty soon it becomes nothing.

High standards of living are an indicator of good governance, which leads to good economic, educational, and welfare systems. It means that these secular governments are doing something right.

So you would be up for Darwins theory of “Survival of the fittest?”

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

See my thread “Does what we know about transgender people throw a wrench at Catholic teaching on sex and marriage?”

I think you got alot of good responses in that thread, have you read it?

 

[HandyAndy]

If the atheists are so confident in Darwin’s theory of evolution…same sex couples have only to wait for the necessary complimentary body parts to arrive yes.

 

[Deana83]

I most certainly believe in God and I do not presume to guess at what he does or does not accept when it comes to marriage. I do know that he left us ten commandants and a golden rule to treat others as we would like to be treated. I know that there are seven deadly sins but I do not think any of them pertain to the love of one person for another. I would leave God’s judgement to God and try to be as understanding as I can of those who would like to burden other people with their personal intolerance’s. No one is trying to make you marry someone you do not love. If you do not accept same gender marriage do not marry someone of the same gender. It really is none of your business.

Very well said. Why are we, as a society, so hung up on what everyone else is doing? I’m married and sometimes it’s a real struggle; I don’t have the time or the energy to worry about whether or not God approves of someone’s gay marriage. Based on what scripture states the answer would be “no” he wouldn’t approve, but he also doesn’t approve of divorce, premarital sex, artificial birth control. adultery, and other things. I know a gay couple who are married and very happy together. I’ve known straight couples who are married that fight, cheat on each other, are physically and verbally abusive. I don’t think I will get into Heaven because I’m straight but I don’t think they are going to Hell because they are gay. Does that make any sense at all? I’m trying to stay out of the whole gay marriage controversy. I just don’t know…