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

[EasterJoy]

Is there something specific which you can identify as wrong in the response given?

As this is a discussion forum, the culture is one of dialogue. One person presents an argument. Another refutes. Another counters. And so it goes.

I don’t think this PeopleB4Things posted with the intention of arguing. The post was merely intended to give an insight into that poster’s position. I posted my differences with the thinking I thought was inherent in the position (as I understood it, mind you), but PeopleB4Things doesn’t want to get into a defense of it, and graciously declined to enter into that discussion, and yet without attacking the opening. That is OK. I thought it was very politely done, in fact.

Everyone ought to have the right to opt out, don’t you think? It is much more civilized if we have the opportunity to refute and counter without feeling at all forced to do it. Otherwise, people who don’t like to argue will be afraid to post. I wouldn’t want that, would you?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think this PeopleB4Things posted with the intention of arguing. The post was merely intended to give an insight into that poster’s position. I posted my differences with the thinking I thought was inherent in the position (as I understood it, mind you), but PeopleB4Things doesn’t want to get into a defense of it, and graciously declined to enter into that discussion, and yet without attacking the opening. That is OK. I thought it was very politely done, in fact.

Everyone ought to have the right to opt out, don’t you think? It is much more civilized if we have the opportunity to refute and counter without feeling at all forced to do it. Otherwise, people who don’t like to argue will be afraid to post. I wouldn’t want that, would you?

Fair enough.

 

[UnCatholicBride]

Scientists have found evidence of homosexuality in all two sex species where they’ve looked. So we know that homosexuality is a common variation found in nature. Many scientists have posited opinions on how the positive effects of homosexuality have assisted in the propagation of the behavior. So if you accept the idea of genetics and evolution & accept that homosexuality is a biological variation, there is no problem. Since 40% of Americans do not believe in concept of evolution at all or in part, there is a significant segment of the population who will think homosexuality is a choice.

Also, we Catholics are not biblical literalists. We don’t follow the letter of every passage found in the bible. Many before me have pointed out that the bible allows us to condemn and even murder people that we as Catholics would never consider doing today. The Catholic Church has interpreted the bible & doctrine in the past to support slavery, rape and murder. But we’ve since changed our evil ways and have done 180s on these positions. I think in time the Church will accept homosexuality and reframe its position of acceptance to align with Church doctrine.

I could not agree more. I also take issue with the translation of the Bible and the fact that the words that have been translated to “homosexual” could have had several other meanings at the time the Bible was written.

 

[PRmerger]

I could not agree more. I also take issue with the translation of the Bible and the fact that the words that have been translated to “homosexual” could have had several other meanings at the time the Bible was written.

How do you know what the correct translation is?

 

[UnCatholicBride]

How do you know what the correct translation is?

I don’t- which is why I refuse to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the translation of a word with multiple meanings. The absence of a definitive answer does not mean that homosexuality is condoned by scripture, but it also means it is not condemned by default.

 

[Rau]

I don’t- which is why I refuse to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the translation of a word with multiple meanings. The absence of a definitive answer does not mean that homosexuality is condoned by scripture, but it also means it is not condemned by default.

The entirety of scripture is subject to translation. This observation provides you with a great many menu options in the cafeteria, n’est pas?

 

[josh987654321]

I don’t- which is why I refuse to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the translation of a word with multiple meanings. The absence of a definitive answer does not mean that homosexuality is condoned by scripture, but it also means it is not condemned by default.

Well, the Church say’s it’s wrong, the Bible say’s it’s wrong, basic biology say’s it’s wrong, so I think people are just being naive, so i guess the question is, do you seek an answer on this issue? do you seek the truth? What is it that you want when it comes to this issue of homosexuality?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t- which is why I refuse to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the translation of a word with multiple meanings. The absence of a definitive answer does not mean that homosexuality is condoned by scripture, but it also means it is not condemned by default.

Then how do you know anything at all is true about God? How do you know that God is love? That God loves you? That homosexuals are loved by God?

 

[EasterJoy]

I could not agree more. I also take issue with the translation of the Bible and the fact that the words that have been translated to “homosexual” could have had several other meanings at the time the Bible was written.

This whole matter of “ambiguity” is an invention that does not even make sense in the greater context of Christendom. This is like hearing from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim that the Church has mistranslated Greek texts, forgetting of course that there have been Greek-speaking Christians reading those texts and knowing what they meant and writing about them and handing that meaning on since the day it was written.

The Bible isn’t a book that has been left buried in a hole somewhere. It has been taught and written about since the Church started. There is no question about what behaviors the Church has always taught are morally repugnant. Homosexual behaviors are morally repugnant, the Church did not approve homosexual attempts at marriage that took place in ancient Rome any more than they do now, and the Church has never shaded the meaning on that. That is made up by people who are engaged in wishful thinking.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t- which is why I refuse to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the translation of a word with multiple meanings. The absence of a definitive answer does not mean that homosexuality is condoned by scripture, but it also means it is not condemned by default.

The Church’s teaching authority doesn’t come from texts thrown out of a moving truck, free of context. The Church herself is the context of the Bible, and the Church herself knows quite well what has been definitively taught concerning homosexual behaviors since the Church began, since before there was a New Testament, and splitting hairs over what someone who picked a Bible up with no context might make of some word in the Bible does not change that. Let us not deceive ourselves, then. (There are plenty of warnings in the New Testament concerning people who would come around and try to accomplish that, aren’t there?)

 

[holyrood]

The entirety of scripture is subject to translation. This observation provides you with a great many menu options in the cafeteria, n’est pas?

Then how do you know anything at all is true about God? How do you know that God is love? That God loves you? That homosexuals are loved by God?

Both of these–exactly. While obviously we must study and discern, this is really a blanket dismissal of the entire Bible, often used by those who then turn and tell the rest of us what it really means. (My question would be: why am I supposed to trust that all the liberals on the internet know the true meaning of the Bible, and God’s true intentions, better than all the greatest saints and Popes and cardinals and bishops and theologians in history?)

For those who are really interested in studying the issue, not merely defending what they want to be true, Josh MacDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict contains wonderful information on how many extant copies of the Bible there are in comparison to extant copies of other ancient texts. He makes the interesting point that we don’t doubt our reading of those other texts, and yet they are much more patched together, from smaller and fewer remains, than what we have of the Bible.

Well, the Church say’s it’s wrong, the Bible say’s it’s wrong, basic biology say’s it’s wrong, so I think people are just being naive, so i guess the question is, do you seek an answer on this issue? do you seek the truth? What is it that you want when it comes to this issue of homosexuality?

Not to mention, every major world religion throughout history has said it’s wrong. There has not been a single culture, ever, anywhere in the entire world, that has had any concept of ‘marriage’ involving only people of the same sex, and when that many cultures throughout history are in agreement, it would be wise of us to stop and consider why, rather than continuing this headlong rush into something the world has never done, with the arrogant attitude that we alone, out of thousands of years of cultures all over the world, suddenly know better than any one of them did, than all of them, together, did.

 

[housefone]

GOD loves they sinner not the sin…

 

[williamsm917]

We don’t have to know what He thinks, we know what He said concerning homosexuality through the revealed truths that He’s left us.

I agree with Lochias. We can not even comprehend what god thinks. We can however know what he told us, take for example Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.”

 

[Cmc1972]

GOD loves they sinner not the sin…

Bingo we have winner.

 

[josh987654321]

I agree with Lochias. We can not even comprehend what god thinks. We can however know what he told us, take for example Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.”

Yup, Accept, whenever Leviticus is quoted in relation to homosexuality, I believe it needs to be put in context, especially seeing as how it mentions putting them to death, I believe it’s important to note that Leviticus say’s the same about adultery and when the adulteress was brought before Jesus in the New Testament to be stonned to death in compliance with mosaic law, Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” than Jesus who was sinless said *“I wont accuse you either, but go and sin no more.” *and thus the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

And when people bring up Sodom and Gomorrah I believe it’s important to also note that homosexuality wasn’t the only sin being commited and God said to Abraham, “if I find even 10 innocent people in those towns, I will spare the entire town.”

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Lochias]

I could not agree more. I also take issue with the translation of the Bible and the fact that the words that have been translated to “homosexual” could have had several other meanings at the time the Bible was written.

But in historical, logical and theological context, we know that the words mean exactly what we think they do (and those meanings really aren’t that hard to come by.)

Further, as others have said, if you make yourself the arbiter of what is right and wrong in the world, then you really bow to no-one’s authority but your own…which, by proxy, renders your words to us completely without credible authority and illogical. Frankly, who are you, that we should agree with you? By what proof and logic can you sway us, when 2000+ of history, logic and theology stand against you?

 

[CaliLobo]

Hey, long time, hope all is well.

Women are roughly equally divided between liberal and conservative, just like the rest of the country. Why are you only meeting liberal women? And if you’re ‘being liberal’ only to appeal to them, don’t you think that insincerity is going to shine through?

The USA is equally divided between liberal and conservative. But college-educated women under 30 are overwhelmingly liberal, and voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Because I too am college-educated, work in a professional field, and hang out with other college-educated people, I tend to meet liberal women.

What is my other choice? For many liberal women, being conservative is a dealbreaker. Liberal women believe conservatives are backward, dumb, and oppressive to women, especially with issues like abortion. If I go against abortion rights, I will not have much chance of getting married in this world.

If you sincerely love and have compassion for women, please read Every Woman Has a Right to Know the Dangers of Legal Abortion by Anne Saltzberger(?) and Aborted Women: Silent No More by David Reardon. Both are packed full of excellent research and anecdotal evidence about the harm abortion is doing to women. I personally know plenty of women who felt pushed into abortion (hey, it’s legal now, why inflict this burden on everyone?), and women who have been devastated by having one and vowed never, ever to do it again.

What about unborn girls? Do you have love and compassion for them?

I really take offense at the notion that anyone who ‘loves women’ must necessarily support abortion. I think abortion is a cruel and callous thing that has been inflicted on women, not to mention what it does to unborn children.

The Bible says nothing on point against abortion. The Bible says God knew us from when we were in the womb, but that is not a prohibition against abortion.

As a man, I will never fully understand how difficult and burdensome pregnancy is. For me to say that if a woman is pregnant, she must carry it out, is oppressive and unloving to women. Because of my compassion for women, I support abortion.

Unborn people deserve love and compassion, but the 14th Amendment begins with “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…” Therefore one must be born to have rights. Fetuses do not have rights.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we must deny the civil rights of others. If you are against abortion, fine, don’t get one. But don’t force your religious views against abortion on a secular government. Civil liberties need to be protected.

If you accidentally got pregnant, or if you accidentally get a girl pregnant, YOU would want that option to be available. Be honest.

It does seem that some people turn their backs on God and live wonderful, happy lives, but you have to consider two things. First, I seriously doubt they’re happy. I have a friend who with his wife has been living the most hedonistic life you can imagine. I’ve had enough deep talks with this person that I don’t for a second believe they’re as happy as they claim. I see them both, in their own way, constantly striving for something that’s clearly missing. (See the previous post about a life of pleasure ultimately being meaningless). And even if they really are happy here and now, a life of sheer hedonism is not going to bring them eternal glory. Is it really a good trade, a moment’s happiness here on Earth for eternal regret and separation from God?

I personally see agnostics and atheists as having lives no better or worse than believers. I’ve met people who are happier after falling away from God. I’ve been a follower, compliant, for so long, and yet my life is no better or worse than that of nonbelievers. Then what is the point? Maybe this whole Christianity thing is a scam, a ploy by the church to oppress people. Maybe God doesn’t care, as he has demonstrated time and time again by letting so much tragedy happen, and not providing me the things I’ve wanted for so long. Why should I worship God if he doesn’t care?

I’ve been a virgin through college and law school. I mostly avoided drugs, I was heavily involved with church in college. But nothing has come out of it. I should’ve fallen away and partied, and slept with women, if I knew my life would end up this way right now.

 

[CaliLobo]

Who else do women who merit your compassion have a license to kill, if having that person in their life makes it too hard? You don’t sound like you love women to me. You sound as if you have contempt for them, because you think they cannot both do the right thing and yet have a happy life. Even atheists want a virtuous life for those they love.

What does abortion have to do with virtue? Don’t you understand that it’s the Catholic Church that has oppressed women by denying them priesthood, denying contraception, and denying abortion?

You write as if sex is what you’re living for, period, and for your own sake only. Actually, from your cumulative posts, it sounds as if you’d even sell your own soul down the river, if there was sex in it for you.

Yeah. I would trade salvation for a life of sex, at this point. I’ve missed out on sex. What’s wrong with that?

You’re a woman, so you have no idea how gut-wrenchingly difficult it can be for men to get sex. Women can get sex so easily. You have NO idea how SCARY it is for a man to approach a woman, for fear of rejection. The pressure men face to approach and be alpha, not be creepy, make a good first impression, and to not mess up on a date. The pressure we face to maintain our marriages or face no-fault divorce! Do you have any idea???

From looking at the way my life has gone, my involvement in churches that discourage dating, my childhood growing up awkward and bullied, my lack of athleticism and bad boy image, and now living in New Mexico… I feel like God is cockblocking me. I wish God would provide or step away.

I would not bet that becoming a “liberal” is going to cause the women to beat a path to your door. You are not looking for a woman to give love to, but rather looking for an object to relieve you of your sexual frustrations. What woman wants that in her husband? For her sake if nothing else, I hope you do not find that wife you want until you have a change of heart. Better that you make yourself miserable by the mindset you have chosen than that you inflict it on someone else.

Being liberal would free me of the Christian guilt of sex, increasing my odds of being more sexually active. (Women can sense when a guy is feeling weird about it.) It might not give me a lasting relationship, but at least I can sleep around in the meantime. Women also want sex too. It will be my homework to figure out where to meet women who also want a fling, and to figure out how to attract their emotional brain, not their logical brain.

After all, what kind of husband are you going to make, if you don’t want to commit to one woman for life, but want to reserve the right to divorce her? What kind of husband, if you think that you will regret having saved yourself for her alone? What kind of husband, if your response to the case where she is incapable of fulfilling her marital duty to you through no fault of her own will be “God knows very well I am lonely. God created me with strong sexual feelings. Is it wrong for me to say that I want sexual freedom?” If you are willing to do what you want instead of staying faithful to God, what are the chances that you will deny yourself in order to be faithful to a mere mortal woman, a woman who can’t be everything you can imagine you want? And you say you have love and compassion for woman. Right. You have an infatuation with the idea that license gives happiness. Give yourself to that deception, and you guarantee yourself a life of misery.

Why does license guarantee misery? Is that more church dogma? If anything, my caution and moderation has given me misery. I should’ve lived it up more if I knew my life would end up like this. My compliance with God has given me nothing.

It’s not like Catholics have the solution either to a lasting marriage, from looking at CAF.

 

[CaliLobo]

Rau:

The word “liberal” is not well defined. Further, accepting that ones position on various subjects might fall into a liberal or conservative region, why does one need to be liberal on all subjects? Aren’t we each entitled to form our views case by case? By the way, I support gay rights too. They are the very same rights each human being deserves.

Then will you join me in supporting gay marriage rights, so that gays can be ensured of the same rights as straights? So that courts will not have a chance at defining “civil union” differently from “marriage”?

please explain. What are the “liberal” characteristics that women you meet require? Please help me to understand the nature of your job and working environment, being apparently one that persecutes people who are different?

My job? “You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be hired to represent you.”

As you can see, my work environment, therefore, is liberal, as it attracts people who are passionate about defending constitutional rights. No, I will not last long in my office by defending Ronald Reagan and George Bush. If I need to pretend to be more liberal than I am to keep my job, so be it.

As far as what liberal characteristics women require, well we know that people under 30 value peaceful coexistence. Avoid war at all costs. Figure out how to coexist as a diverse society, diverse in race, religion, culture, and sexual orientation.

Younger people understand that capitalist greed has put the entire planet and environment in danger. Younger people are not as entrepreneurial as previous generations. Rather, they prefer that all people have enough pieces of the pie so we can coexist peacefully. They want government to be able to facilitate that. Younger people fear that capitalist economic systems are breaking down, and jobs are turning scarce. Therefore, they want a government that helps ensure their survival (social safety net, health care).

Younger people, because of the Internet and world travel, understand that this world is diverse, and not everyone is Christian. Therefore, they value individual rights. Let me live the lifestyle I want, and you can live the lifestyle you want. And don’t infringe on the civil rights of others. (In other words, if you don’t support gay marriage and abortion rights, then don’t be gay or have an abortion. But don’t destroy the civil rights of others.)

Rau:

is political support different than some other kind of support? Have you thought deeply about abortion, or do you support it to earn favour with liberal women? Are there any limits to this support, or are women authorised to abort their babies anytime, for any reason? Just trying to get a handle on how you’ve arrived at these ‘positions’.

I have supported abortion ever since I learned about it in middle school. Even back then, I concluded that it is the right thing to do to prevent cruelty to women. I do believe abortion should be regulated; it can’t be unfettered.

Define sexual freedom? Whatever it is, I think you are free to choose it. I married late in life, so I understand some of your angst. Portraying yourself in a certain light to suit the available women does not sound like a good strategy. Have you considered changing your environment?

Yes, every day I want to leave New Mexico. But I can’t just quit my job and rush out of here. It’s a risk to quit my job without another lined up. But the clock is ticking, and push is coming to shove. Do you have any advice on this, since you married late in life?

I fail to see any connection between you marital status and the question at hand. The State may choose not to recognise a union of same sex persons, and I don’t see how the individuals have a “right” to demand otherwise, especially when you think about why the State chose to recognise marriage in the first place. We can love whomever we want, cohabit with whomever we want. But why should the State be obligated to recognise a union that is not of relevance to building up the society, as the marriage of you and your future wife may offer?

Why is it not of relevance to building up society? Gays can have jobs and adopt children, and contribute to society. We know that a small percentage naturally are gay. Even the Catechism says that the genesis of homosexuality is not fully known.

The state should recognize these unions because of modern notions of civil rights, the idea that gay humans are equal to straight humans, and should be allowed the same privileges and opportunities in life.

 

[CaliLobo]

To put this thread back to the original topic, let me ask a question:

Close your eyes. Can you imagine Jesus preaching to today’s people: “Homosexuality is a sin, and we must do everything to make sure that the laws of secular governments do not allow for marriage to be redefined to include same sex marriages. We must not extend the civil right of marriage to gay couples.”

Can you imagine Jesus doing that? I don’t think so…

Again, why should we follow the Magisterium, when the Catholic Church is clearly losing relevance and losing ground to the Evangelical churches, which allow people to vote according to their consciences? Why should we follow the Catholic Church when it has committed crimes against humanity?

Maybe Jesus doesn’t care one way or the other about this gay marriage thing.