This is the very reason we must place our trust in God. It is only through one’s arrogance, do we throw God’s plan out the window and replace it with our own.I just don’t know…
I believe the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral and if a homosexual wnats to act on those desires, I’m hardly going to say they cannot do it.
True, but why would anyone advocate those things?
God prefers a loving sinner to a loveless “saint” - Bishop Fulton J. SheenI 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…
That might be true for you, but it’s not true for me!
OK, let’s assume you’re right.
These things are true because you believe them to be true, apparently.
But by your own admission, these things you are saying are no more true than they are false.
Would you accept a God that encourages close and meaningful relationships between people of the same sex, and does not condemn a person for being gay, but wants to reserve the notion of “marriage” for the live-giving union of a man and a woman?
Close and meaningful but not sexual
2 comments:
It is the epitome of creating a god in one’s own image if one rejects a god who doesn’t agree with one’s own viewpoints.
Were you under the misapprehension that Catholicism professes that everything we believe has to be found in a Bible verse?
I hope you see the irony between #3 and #4. If there is no absolute standard of morality, then you cannot say, in #4, that “it is wrong”.
We aren’t talking about “these things” “all the time”. Just some of the time.
That would be as ridiculous as saying, “We need to change the fact that immunizations help our society because so many people don’t immunize their children!”
How about #7? Do you agree that it’s possible to be a faithful Christian and support gay marriage rights politically?Were you under the misapprehension that Catholicism professes that everything we believe has to be found in a Bible verse?
I hope you see the irony between #3 and #4. If there is no absolute standard of morality, then you cannot say, in #4, that “it is wrong”.
Those 2 points are contradictory.
We aren’t talking about “these things” “all the time”. Just some of the time.
That would be as ridiculous as saying, “We need to change the fact that immunizations help our society because so many people don’t immunize their children!”
First let me say that the only reason I responded here is the thread’s subject line, which seems to indicate complete incredulity that some may actually believe God accepts same-sex marriage. Clearly, such people do in fact exist. It’s a strangely worded question, since it purports to speak to everyone but is really only speaking to those who view same-sex marriage as the OP does. Weird.
No, there’s another option. That you are thinking through a question, and coming to the wrong answer.
What you know of Christ and what He said comes ONLY from the Catholic Church.
Wouldn’t that indicate a problem with catecheses?
I’ll grant that it’s a biased thread title, yes.
Please show where Christ spoke for homosexuality and homosexual relationships, especially in light of the culture he lived in (and he was an obedient Jew, as we all know and can prove).
I am persuaded by the evidence against, but I will grant that this area is (sometimes) greyer than number 1, which is far more clear-cut.
I would go so far as to say that I agree that homosexual inclinations are themselves not unnatural, yes. However, as an example, you could then also say (truly) that the desire for murder in some individuals is also natural.
But homosexual acts ARE unnatural, just as murder is unnatural. The fact that you find that unsatisfactory is (while understandable, to a degree) irrelevant. That’s just the way it is.
That is because you have chosen to be persuaded by one side of the argument. That you have chosen to disregard the arguments and evidence on the other side does not mean that you are automatically correct in your assessments, particularly in light of the fact that you are Catholic.
That does not give you an excuse to stop the continued and proper formation of your conscience, though.
The thing is, if we aren’t with the Church, then we are against the Church. I would posit that, while you are aware of the Church’s teachings on the issue, you do not fully understand them.
It is hard to argue that you’ve been fully catechized. You know what the Church teaches and you reject some of it on your own authority. Those are not the same thing. Your conscience is binding when it is properly formed; to 'follow your conscience" does not mean you have carte blanche to re-write moral law. I don’t think you are arrogant, however; I think you have merely gotten the wrong idea about what a moral conscience is an how it is to be formed. At any rate, there are no areas of human morality where the prevalent is the same as the moral. People commonly lie to each other; that doesn’t make lying OK. Little kids steal things, sometime: typical, but not according to a moral norm, and therefore not “normal”.
I’m not sure you know what “normal” means. Which definition are you using?
Catechisis isn’t like a dye that we stick on people. It’s not a way of morphing other people’s views into the views of the Church. That kind of catechisis is disrespectful to people. The catechist ought to clearly communicate the views of the Church, and explain the reasons that the Church holds these views.
Very, very well put.It is hard to argue that you’ve been fully catechized. You know what the Church teaches and you reject some of it on your own authority. Those are not the same thing. Your conscience is binding when it is properly formed; to 'follow your conscience" does not mean you have carte blanche to re-write moral law. I don’t think you are arrogant, however; I think you have merely gotten the wrong idea about what a moral conscience is an how it is to be formed. At any rate, there are no areas of human morality where the prevalent is the same as the moral. People commonly lie to each other; that doesn’t make lying OK. Little kids steal things, sometime: typical, but not according to a moral norm, and therefore not “normal”.
To the point that Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, that is silly. He never spoke about pedophilia or necrophilia or incest, either. Since homosexual acts were openly endorsed by the Greeks and Romans and were considered disordered in his time, then what do you do with his contention that he did not come to do away with the Law? Which sexual mores did he change? None. He was compassionate to those who fell into sin, but he enlarged none of the boundaries. If anything, he was even more strict, saying that those who indulged in lust were guilty of adultery and divorcing a spouse you don’t like is forbidden–a point, incidentally, that some “well-catechized” Catholics feel free to ignore even though he was entirely specific about it . Certainly the Epistles (written prior to the Gospels, by the way), were clearly against homosexual acts.
The Church is not against an arrangement where adults take care of each other. Stable, caring relationships are fine. They just aren’t marriage. They just ought not have sex unless they’re married. Within marriage, sex ought to be open to the procreative aspect, even if one seems about as likely to become pregnant and Abraham and Sarah. Marriage is a particular and special thing, a thing having to do with generating and maintaining families. It isn’t about adults who want everyone else to give them social status because they’re sex partners. In the absence of procreation, after all, why would a couple having sex have some status that a couple not having sex wouldn’t have?
Why talk about Church teachings as a “view”? The Church does not teach an opinion. The Church teaches the truth. We each face obstacles to living it, but this does not mean we have any authority whatsoever to alter the truth.