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

[EasterJoy]

And I just explained to you why I, and billions of others, do NOT give much weight to the Catholic Church’s lens for interpreting Scripture. It does NOT prove that Jesus is NOT God.

Rather, it proves that the CC has no credibility.

EasterJoy, you skipped over most of my post. Could you explain why:

1. The CC’s insistence on adhering to tradition is ineffective, and the Protestants’ espousing of modern methods is effective?
2. Protestant churches have better community than Catholics?
3. Protestants are willing to discuss faith, and encourage each other in faith, more openly than Catholics?
4. Protestants know the Bible, teach it, and preach it better and with more charisma than Catholics?
5. Every time I come close to the CC, I feel depressed and alone, and every time I come close to a Protestant church, I feel spiritually fed? This despite no Real Presence?
6. Protestants are able to re-Christianize Europe and Latin America, whereas Catholics are doing nothing while we are losing Europe to Islam, the way we lost North Africa to Islam centuries ago?

Could you explain why we have to disallow gay marriage in the political arena, an arena Jesus never touched? How is that love? How is that making Christianity relevant to today’s people?

If other denominations, such as the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and some Evangelicals, have, through their academic research, concluded that it is okay to support gay marriage rights in the political arena, then why should I give their interpretation less weight than that of the Catholic Church? Aren’t other denominations as intelligent as the Catholics?

Why should I tolerate the excuses you guys make for the Catholic Church’s crimes against humanity? Why would I want to be part of an organization that commits genocide and harbors sex offenders?

I understand that maybe we need an outside lens to interpret the Bible, but why does it have to be your foggy lens? The historical abuses of the CC, and the ineffectiveness of the CC I describe in items 1-6 above, prove that the CC’s lens isn’t that great after all. No amount of Apostolic Succession will justify such a foggy lens.

Looking objectively the history of the West, couldn’t we conclude that the CC has lost its way, and the truth is now found in other churches?

Why can’t we use another lens and conclude:
A) The Bible doesn’t say anything about how to vote or act politically
B) Since Jesus never overthrew Rome, it means Jesus cared more about evangelism than political involvement
C) Jesus did say to love your neighbor as you love yourself, his 2nd commandment
D) Therefore, it is possible to be a faithful, loving Christian and support same-sex marriage rights politically
E) After all, life on Earth is a blip on the radar compared to the afterlife, so why do earthly politics really matter either way?

What do you mean by “effective”? Do you mean they are producing many great saints, people who are living heroic lives of virtue, or do you mean they are popular? If the Anglicans are so happy about gay marriage (as an example), why are there Anglican-rite Catholics now? We didn’t have that when I was a kid. If Protestants are so universally loving and get such a great understanding of the Bible by interpreting it on their own, who are the people picketing funerals with the signs that say God hates gays? They aren’t Catholic. Or do those Protestants not count for some reason?

I’m sure I don’t know what you mean by a “better community.” There are some very good communities, yes, but universally “better” has not been my experience, and I have gone to some Protestant churches. It is kind of a ridiculous claim, when you look at it closely. For instance, in one small town where I lived, there was some kind of dispute in one of the local evangelical churches that resulted in a new congregation splitting off. Well, if you can pick up and start a new church every time people start irritating you, then I suppose you can shop around and find a group that suits you.

I don’t know what kind of “marriage” you* wouldn’t *support, based on A-E. I don’t know why you’d even bother to vote, for that matter. When it comes to the blip on the radar, though, read your Bible. To love your neighbor as yourself means NOT gratifying the desires of the flesh:

For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:13-21

Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit. Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up. Gal 6:7-9

 

[Rau]

Why can’t we use another lens and conclude:
A) The Bible doesn’t say anything about how to vote or act politically
B) Since Jesus never overthrew Rome, it means Jesus cared more about evangelism than political involvement
C) Jesus did say to love your neighbor as you love yourself, his 2nd commandment
D) Therefore, it is possible to be a faithful, loving Christian and support same-sex marriage rights politically
E) After all, life on Earth is a blip on the radar compared to the afterlife, so why do earthly politics really matter either way?

Cali - you can choose any lens that you like.

I do not understand your idea that we should be OK , indeed supportive, of anything happening in the “secular” world, regardless of our view of its morality or ‘rightness’. How does one - in all honesty - occupy both sides of the morality fence simultaneously? I guess one does it by saying: “I believe this is wrong, but I acknowledge you have the right to choose to do that”. Actually, I’m OK with that – but how do you go the next step and argue that the State ought to go and facilitate the thing?

I responded to your thoughts on this issue earlier as follows:, and explained why I believe I am entirely entitled to take the position I do. I accept that the State may decide contrary to my view - we live in a democracy.

Rau:

So, Cali, do you believe Jesus was OK with people doing wrong, so long as the secular law permitted it? Or do you believe people of God should take no interest in the secular law, eg. perhaps they should not bother voting?

Jesus may not have advocated anarchy, or rioting in the streets, or uprising against the State. But given we have free will, and we live in a democracy, we should feel bound to use those tools to teach and to persuade our brothers to what is right. This is not forcing our beliefs on anyone - it is a proper exercise of our rights as citizens and our duty as Christians. We cannot do that through ambivalence and acquiescence, or worse, by encouraging the secular authorities to legislate for what we know to be wrong.

In regard to [D] - which to my mind does not seem to follow at all from what went before - how would you feel about a new secular institution which would recognise the union of a same sex couple, and provide all the rights and obligations under law that enabled that couple to mutually care for each other till death. Eg. inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc. etc. This would be called something other than Marriage, but the legal framework might be near-identical.

 

[Arlotus]

Very Catholic, this!

(Not to mention, it oozes fundamentalism. Catholic fundamentalism, to be sure! )

Good one.

 

[PRmerger]

Good one.

 

[Arlotus]

Is that meant to be me, or you? I am nay used to yer umor.

 

[CaliLobo]

Cali - you can choose any lens that you like.

I do not understand your idea that we should be OK , indeed supportive, of anything happening in the “secular” world, regardless of our view of its morality or ‘rightness’. How does one - in all honesty - occupy both sides of the morality fence simultaneously? I guess one does it by saying: “I believe this is wrong, but I acknowledge you have the right to choose to do that”. Actually, I’m OK with that – but how do you go the next step and argue that the State ought to go and facilitate the thing?

I responded to your thoughts on this issue earlier as follows:, and explained why I believe I am entirely entitled to take the position I do. I accept that the State may decide contrary to my view - we live in a democracy.

Because the State is secular, whether we like it or not, morality is irrelevant to determining what the State should do. The State is simply bound by the Constitution. And it’s pretty clear that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted in a secular manner, without favoring one religion over another.

And although it leads to results such as normalization of gay culture, which is uncomfortable to some, in the end, this is a good thing. Because, for Christians to impose their lifestyle on the rest of the population would set bad precedent. For example, it is a good thing that God is banned from graduation speeches, and that all prayer in public schools is banned by the US Supreme Court. Why? I doubt you would like it if Muslims asserted the right to have Muslim prayer facilities and hours in American public schools. Or if sale of pork (and alcohol!) was considered unconstitutional under the guise of “freedom of religion”. Or if they imposed their standards of modesty on the rest of the population (let’s see how the women of CAF handle that!).

Secularism is the only way to ensure peace in a pluralistic society and avoid sectarian violence.

Because what’s wrong for you is not wrong for others, it logically follows that the State isn’t facilitating anything wrong.

The funny thing is, there’s nothing in the Bible that forbids me from having this position.

Rau:

In regard to [D] - which to my mind does not seem to follow at all from what went before - how would you feel about a new secular institution which would recognise the union of a same sex couple, and provide all the rights and obligations under law that enabled that couple to mutually care for each other till death. Eg. inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc. etc. This would be called something other than Marriage, but the legal framework might be near-identical.

The State is simply bound by the Constitution, and one of the purposes of the Constitution is to protect individual rights. This includes the right to marriage, which is considered fundamental by the Supreme Court (and the UN, if that convinces you more). Because the State is secular, it is improper for Christians to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of the population. Not everyone is Christian and not everyone believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Since marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to all, alternate definitions of marriage must be protected as well.

The problem with your proposal–let’s call it “civil union” for the sake of argument–is that it leaves open the door for courts and the legislature to give civil unions unequal protections as those given to marriages. That is the very thing fueling this civil rights issue. Allowing gays the right to have licensed “marriages” is the ONLY way to ensure the outcome that you are desiring above.

 

[holyrood]

Secularism is the only way to ensure peace in a pluralistic society and avoid sectarian violence…

Because society has gotten steadily more peaceful as we’ve become steadily more pluralistic and secular over the past 45 years…

 

[CaliLobo]

Because society has gotten steadily more peaceful as we’ve become steadily more pluralistic and secular over the past 45 years…

Yes. The secular societies of Europe, Latin America, and Japan are much more peaceful than the USA and Islam.

Have you forgotten that more people have died in the name of Christianity than any other religion?

 

[esieffe]

This is a Zombie thread!

 

[Arlotus]

This is a Zombie thread!

… would you say that you have come to the right thread then?

 

[Rau]

Because the State is secular, whether we like it or not, morality is irrelevant to determining what the State should do. The State is simply bound by the Constitution. And it’s pretty clear that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted in a secular manner, without favoring one religion over another.

And although it leads to results such as normalization of gay culture, which is uncomfortable to some, in the end, this is a good thing. Because, for Christians to impose their lifestyle on the rest of the population would set bad precedent. For example, it is a good thing that God is banned from graduation speeches, and that all prayer in public schools is banned by the US Supreme Court. Why? I doubt you would like it if Muslims asserted the right to have Muslim prayer facilities and hours in American public schools. Or if sale of pork (and alcohol!) was considered unconstitutional under the guise of “freedom of religion”. Or if they imposed their standards of modesty on the rest of the population (let’s see how the women of CAF handle that!).

Secularism is the only way to ensure peace in a pluralistic society and avoid sectarian violence.

Because what’s wrong for you is not wrong for others, it logically follows that the State isn’t facilitating anything wrong.

The funny thing is, there’s nothing in the Bible that forbids me from having this position.

The State is simply bound by the Constitution, and one of the purposes of the Constitution is to protect individual rights. This includes the right to marriage, which is considered fundamental by the Supreme Court (and the UN, if that convinces you more). Because the State is secular, it is improper for Christians to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of the population. Not everyone is Christian and not everyone believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Since marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to all, alternate definitions of marriage must be protected as well.

The problem with your proposal–let’s call it “civil union” for the sake of argument–is that it leaves open the door for courts and the legislature to give civil unions unequal protections as those given to marriages. That is the very thing fueling this civil rights issue. Allowing gays the right to have licensed “marriages” is the ONLY way to ensure the outcome that you are desiring above.

Cali - we’re not debating what the State can do - it can do whatever the citizenry will accept under democratic processes. We’re debating my right to put a view about what the State should do. By putting my view, I am imposing nothing. I have no power to impose. The State will decide what it wants. If the majority believe the notion of gay marriage (by that name) is a nonsense, then we won’t have gay marriage.

You refer to marriage as a right endorsed by the UN. I assume you refer to Article 16:
*
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the **natural and fundamental group unit of society *and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

I see no difficulty with each of us having that right as described by the UN declaration.

That this right is guaranteed to all does **not **mean that the definition of marriage must be adjusted to accommodate the demands of all. If that were the case (as you argue), marriage is just a flexible legal framework binding and granting rights to arbitrary groups of people. You would have us believe that any form of limitation to “marriage” eligibility (eg. restricting it to 2 persons only?) amounts to an “imposition” and is unjust. If marriage can be pretty much any grouping, why have it at all? As I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with considering legal frameworks to meet reasonable requirements -such as a same sex couple who wish to support each other (financially, emotionally, etc.) till death - but don’t call them marriage!

Not sure why you speak of “unequal protections” - the legal frameworks should be fit for purpose - that’s all. The State is entitled to discriminate appropriately - at least if that is the will of the people. A Marriage contract is not the same as a business “Partnership”. I say the State should not give 2 different things the same name.

 

[EasterJoy]

Because the State is secular, whether we like it or not, morality is irrelevant to determining what the State should do.

Wow, oh wow…“morality is irrelevant.” Yes, because “everyone knows” people with no religion are utterly amoral.

If you believe the Constitution forbids laws that have a moral basis, if that is one of the axioms of your political thinking and what you think constitutes the foundation of a democracy, I think we’re well beyond “agree to disagree”.

 

[EasterJoy]

Secularism is the only way to ensure peace in a pluralistic society and avoid sectarian violence.

Hey, why not? The Soviets tried it, the whole Communist bloc tried it, and heavens knows it worked wonders for them! Yes, by all means, get rid of religion, the opiate of the masses. Religion is the root of all violence, and if you can just get rid of that, everyone is going to work and play well with others. That line of thinking has never failed yet!!

 

[EasterJoy]

This is a Zombie thread!

Because it won’t die or because it makes you feel as if it is trying to eat your brains?

 

[CaliLobo]

As I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with considering legal frameworks to meet reasonable requirements -such as a same sex couple who wish to support each other (financially, emotionally, etc.) till death - but don’t call them marriage!

Not sure why you speak of “unequal protections” - the legal frameworks should be fit for purpose - that’s all. The State is entitled to discriminate appropriately - at least if that is the will of the people. A Marriage contract is not the same as a business “Partnership”. I say the State should not give 2 different things the same name.

I guess we are at a standstill then. I speak of unequal protections because I, along with billions of others, believe that we should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I am also of the subset that believe that Jesus does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and does not sanction others doing so.

EasterJoy:

Wow, oh wow…“morality is irrelevant.” Yes, because “everyone knows” people with no religion are utterly amoral.

If you believe the Constitution forbids laws that have a moral basis, if that is one of the axioms of your political thinking and what you think constitutes the foundation of a democracy, I think we’re well beyond “agree to disagree”.

I never said people with no religion are amoral. And I never said the Constitution forbids laws that have a moral basis. Religion and morals are two different things. Many religious people are amoral; many nonreligious people are moral. Morality is independent of religion.

 

[CaliLobo]

God doesn’t care, in my opinion. If he is cruel enough to take away a near-perfect girlfriend from me, much less all the other human tragedy in this world, it’s clear he doesn’t care. And it rings hollow, the idea that God somehow lets this happen to build our character for the future.

 

[Rau]

I guess we are at a standstill then. I speak of unequal protections because I, along with billions of others, believe that we should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I am also of the subset that believe that Jesus does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and does not sanction others doing so.

I do not advocate (unjust) discrimination either Cali. But, I do think different things ought to be distinguished when the difference is significant. Nothing unjust in that.

I assume we can agree that Jesus was not a secular ‘actor’, so we’re allowed to introduce morality into the discussion when considering his position on issues. Therefore:

I agree with you that Jesus does not take an adverse view of the same sex attracted person (if that captures your expression “does not discriminate”). However, I believe he does not kindly view two person of the same sex engaging in sexual acts together (or alone for that matter). I assume you disagree on this?

I doubt Jesus has a problem with 2 persons of the same sex wishing to live together in mutual support and care, and nor would he have a problem with the State creating a legal framework to give the rights, protections and obligations reasonably necessary or desired for that. However, I confess to not knowing if, or at what point, a romantic element to that relationship crosses the moral line. Certainly it does (IMHO) if sex acts are involved.

 

[EasterJoy]

I guess we are at a standstill then. I speak of unequal protections because I, along with billions of others, believe that we should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I am also of the subset that believe that Jesus does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and does not sanction others doing so.

I never said people with no religion are amoral. And I never said the Constitution forbids laws that have a moral basis. Religion and morals are two different things. Many religious people are amoral; many nonreligious people are moral. Morality is independent of religion.

You did not write that religion was irrelevant. You wrote: “Because the State is secular, whether we like it or not, morality is irrelevant to determining what the State should do.”

We are finding by experience that to encourage homosexuals to approximate marriage is to encourage the conception of children outside of wedlock. It is encouraging the use of surrogates. We are encouraging unions that find women to conceive and bear children for pay, that find men to father children with the intention of abandoning all parental rights. That is what is happening. I find that morally repugnant, and I don’t know why an irreligious person wouldn’t.

No, it isn’t “polite” to question extramarital means of conception with the people who pretend they are the biological parents of the children they purchased away from their other parent, not even when the parents are obviously not both the parents because they are the same sex. We’re expected to keep our mouths shut about this commerce in children. If two people who aren’t married get pregnant because they are actually on intimate enough terms to have sex, this is looked down upon. Those children are “accidents.” If some medical people are chosen as intermediaries in order to sanitize the procedure, that is “all love.” How warped can you get?

 

[EasterJoy]

God doesn’t care, in my opinion. If he is cruel enough to take away a near-perfect girlfriend from me, much less all the other human tragedy in this world, it’s clear he doesn’t care. And it rings hollow, the idea that God somehow lets this happen to build our character for the future.

Was God constructed to serve you, or were you made to serve God?

 

[Lochias]

God doesn’t care, in my opinion. If he is cruel enough to take away a near-perfect girlfriend from me, much less all the other human tragedy in this world, it’s clear he doesn’t care. And it rings hollow, the idea that God somehow lets this happen to build our character for the future.

So God is only good as long as you get everything you want? Are your parents awful, horrible people because they didn’t get you that toy you really wanted back when you were 12?

Is a girlfriend, in your eyes, now reduced to being a band-aid or a crutch to help ease your loneliness?

I gently submit that, with your current POV, I think you maybe aren’t ready for a girlfriend yet, and God is probably got both your and her best interests in mind. It’ll happen, but you have to keep faith, work on being happy in the now, and realize that every day is good, no matter what.

If you can’t develop that kind of love for self and for others, you ultimately won’t have anything to give a potential spouse. We need other people who are whole and can share freely, not people who can only use us as support for themselves.

Be patient. Be hopeful. Get back to Church, get praying. One day at a time. It’ll happen. If you need a friendly ear, shoot me a PM.