Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[erigby27]

What if sex isn’t just for procreation, think Songs of Songs, whenever that guy talks about getting it on with beautiful girl, I doubt he was thinking about having children. That’s in the Bible, totally not using sex for procreation, he’s using it for love.

Even though every sex act may not result in procreation, it must be ordered towards procreation and open to life.

That’s why you can do almost anything you want in bed (as long as it maintains both people’s dignity), as long as ejaculation occurs in the vagina (and as long as both individuals are married).

If you truly love someone, you uphold his or her dignity. To use someone else’s body in a way that God didn’t intend it to be used is not upholding their dignity. He gave us everything we need. Why must we question him?

As for the OP’s question, I don’t agree that homosexual “marriage” falls under the category of freedom of religion.

Should a brother and a sister be able to get married if they “love each other”? Are they hurting anyone by doing so? Maybe not directly, but they are perverting the institution of marriage, and actually forcing a social handicap on their children; if their children are born healthy, they will still be rejected from society because of their abnormal family situation.

Same-sex unions, however much they are forced on us by the media and politicians, will never be normal. Even if people become more accustomed to them, those people still won’t be completely comfortable with the idea, as we know that it is a perversion. Usually when things are rejected throughout history, we know it’s because they are not good [Please don’t throw the ancient Greece argument at me. The pedophilic relationships that occurred in ancient Greece didn’t result in socially condoned marital unions]. And because of that, the children of a same sex union have a permanent social handicap.

Every child has the right to have one father and one mother, in the same home. This type of family unit is the most conducive to our development as human beings. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t have lasted.

 

[AngelAshley]

You weren’t born wrong, but you were born different. Different is not wrong

Thanks That’s why I put “wrong” in quotes…

Which is why, I dare say, you are so willing to change the institution upon which civilization was built to the point of it being unrecognizable as an institution at all. If you knew what it was, you would leave it alone.

Civilization was not “built” entirely on marriage. There were a lot of other things involved. I do not wish to change it “to the point of it being unrecognizable as an institution at all”. Including homosexuality will not do that. It will make it a more equal institution, one that does not discriminate on arbitary factors such as sexual orientation.

You said it, I didn’t (no need to emphasis male/female parts of
the body) and for your information, I am not a priest.
Anyway, why trying to put the nail in the coffin on this gay
issue. It is a disease of the mind and God’s law was made
known to us by the prophets of old so why are we trying to make
everyone believe that gay is not a sickness and that everyone
should accept this people for who they are.

I can’t find the exact text of your original post but I seem to remember you were implying that there is no difference between biological sex and social gender. The preist reference was a tasteless gag.
Homosexuality is not a “desiese”.
“A disease is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs.”
Nothing is impaired by homosexuality. We still continue to function exactly the same as everybody else does, with the exception that we are attracted to members of the same sex. “Some people are gay, get over it.”

Should a brother and a sister be able to get married if they “love each other”? Are they hurting anyone by doing so? Maybe not directly, but they are perverting the institution of marriage, and actually forcing a social handicap on their children; if their children are born healthy, they will still be rejected from society because of their abnormal family situation.

Applying that logic to homosexuality, yes, perhaps children will be somewhat rejected from society because of their “abnormal family situation”. Which is exactly why we need to teach equality and inclusion, and is exactly why we need to include homosexuals into marriage, so that we teach our kids that unjust discrimination is wrong.

Same-sex unions, however much they are forced on us by the media and politicians, will never be normal.

Define “normal”. Nothing is “normal”. Why should we be a flock of sheep herded to do what everybody else does? What happened to free will?

Usually when things are rejected throughout history, we know it’s because they are not good

But we have been VERY VERY wrong on a few of them. Take race for example!

And because of that, the children of a same sex union have a permanent social handicap.

Until society learns that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

 

[erigby27]

We will never succeed in forcing society to accept something that is unnatural, especially when it only affects about 4% of the population. Unless you plan on converting people to homosexuality?

Natural Law, and our understanding of it, doesn’t change because of a disorder affecting 4% of the population. That is ridiculous.

 

[friarjamesosf]

As NMG Stated, biography at the bottom of the page.
I’m interested, what makes me scary? Oh sorry, have I just scared you into questioning your faith?

Neither had I! That special report by the catholic church is quite astounding isn’t it?! Quoting discredited scientists, using questionable psycological tactics to steer the reader, misquoting statistics… good job someone had the spare time it took to explain it all to someone who might not know better

I’d like to know why you think it’s “trash”. I don’t care how the Catholic Church sees homosexuals… as NMG stated, it’s the state I’m concerned about, since I don’t follow the Church and (with proper seperation of Church and State, which is what I’m aiming for) the Church can never impose it’s narrow minded views on me.
Question - how is denying the right to marriage “respect”?

That’s a cop-out if ever I saw one! Surely you can come up with one small example and explain it to the good people of this forum?!

Ash - I owe you a huge apology! I mis-read your posting in which you listed both articles. I read the article “Special Report” as an article you wrote - totally missing the geocities article as your article responding to the other.

All of my comments were directed toward the person who wrote that “Special Report” - that article is what I was calling “trash.”

Ash, my sincere apologies for my mistake.
jim

 

[friarjamesosf]

not an economic view, welfare as a morale view. Some feel it is a moral obligation to move (by force) money from some one who earned it to someone who did not. If you do not feel the majority should have the right to force their idea of morality as it relates to gay unions, why should another group be able to force their view of morality as it comes to welfare, or any other leftist ideology for that matter?

Those who feel that way may well do so because of the Judeo-Christian history of “JUBILEE” and because of the things Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, there was also the encounter with the Rich Young Man – who pressed Jesus for a specific answer as to what he needed to do to inherit eternal life (Mark 10.)

By the way, based on what you said above, would the Sermon on the Mount be another example of “leftist ideology?”

 

[fix]

*“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” *(Mt 19:17)

“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17). In this way, a close connection is made *between eternal life and obedience to God’s commandments: *God’s commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it. From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation…

… Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to* exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. *This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, *the crisis of truth *is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature…

 

[NoMoreGames]

What is the very idea of human nature?

 

[AngelAshley]

We will never succeed in forcing society to accept something that is unnatural, especially when it only affects about 4% of the population. Unless you plan on converting people to homosexuality?

What makes it unnatural? Homosexuality has been observed in the wild you know. Besides, I could list here COUNTLESS things that are unnatural. I’m willing to put a few dollars down on a bet that you’re wearing something unnatural

It may only affect 4% of the population, but the homosexual community is gaining supporters in huge numbers. I’m an admin of a few Facebook groups supporting homosexual rights, I actually quite rarely see people introduce themselves as gay, but countless people say their straight but want to join our fight. It’s really lovely to hear from all these people

 

[NoMoreGames]

We will never succeed in forcing society to accept something that is unnatural, especially when it only affects about 4% of the population. Unless you plan on converting people to homosexuality?

Natural Law, and our understanding of it, doesn’t change because of a disorder affecting 4% of the population. That is ridiculous.

What exactly do you mean by unnatural? I’d argue that things like polyester, air conditioning and eye glasses are far more unnatural. If your definition is unnatural is “has been happening since the beging of time but has only gained attention recently” then I agree.

You don’t think that abolitionists met with obstacles? Looking back I’m willing to bet you’d agree denying blacks any civil rights was a horrible thing to do. Same situation here. In the future, those who oppose equal rights for homosexuals will be seen in the same light as those who supported slavery.

Natural law does not change, but man’s understand of this natural law (which has still never been clearly defined in the topic) does change. I point to the slavery example again. In the time of slavery, those who owned slaves probably felt it was natural law that the more dominant could own the more submissive. We now know that attitude to be wrong.

The percentage of the population is not relevant. People should not be not accepted just because they do not exist in large numbers. As far as being converted to homosexuality, that’s just absurd. Just as if one is straight they could not be honestly attracted to the same sex even if they tried, gays can’t be attracted to the opposite. There is no conversion going on by either side. Those who say they were converted from homosexuality were simply confused in the first place, but it is now clear to them.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I’ve been away from my computer for a few days, and upon reading through the 4 pages I have a few thoughts.

It was said that I was posting on a catholic forum and that it would be almost atheistic to remove religion from the response. This is not true. I totally understand the nature of this site, I found it looking for answer about my faith. Asking for social reasons to ban an action looked down upon religion is not an atheistic question. It is simply a question created to cause a non religious debate among religious people. I think it has shown that even believers of the same faith can have polar opposite sides on a social issue

It was stated that non-love, disordered love, and lust can be disguised as love. First off, what exactly is meant be disordered love? Second, on the outside of a relationship, it is impossible to determine what is present. Those who do not believe in God do not understand the love between an individual and God. Even fellow Catholics will never fully understand my personal love for God. The same could be true here. Outside of a gay relationship, it is easy to say that their love is not real or is lust, but only the two individuals can truly determine what is present between them.

I’m not saying love always exists in a homosexual relationship, but it doesn’t always exist in straight relationships either. Just because it’s between opposite genders doesn’t make it right, likewise, just because it’s between two of the same doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

As far as the statement made earlier in the topic, that all the people before us couldn’t possible be wrong about it, it is completely possible they have been. Think of how wrong early doctors (used only in the loosest sense of the modern meaning) were. Understanding changes with time. Again I point to the slavery example. In that time, people though it was totally acceptable. Today we see that it is not. Entire societies CAN be wrong. They just don’t like to admit it

 

[fix]

What is the very idea of human nature?

The great concern of our contemporaries for historicity and for culture has led some to call into question *the immutability of the natural law *itself, and thus the existence of “objective norms of morality” 96 valid for all people of the present and the future, as for those of the past. Is it ever possible, they ask, to consider as universally valid and always binding certain rational determinations established in the past, when no one knew the progress humanity would make in the future?

It must certainly be admitted that man always exists in a particular culture, but it must also be admitted that man is not exhaustively defined by that same culture. Moreover, the very progress of cultures demonstrates that there is something in man which transcends those cultures. This “something” is precisely human nature: this nature is itself the measure of culture and the condition ensuring that man does not become the prisoner of any of his cultures, but asserts his personal dignity by living in accordance with the profound truth of his being. To call into question the permanent structural elements of man which are connected with his own bodily dimension would not only conflict with common experience, but would render meaningless *Jesus’ reference to the “beginning”, *precisely where the social and cultural context of the time had distorted the primordial meaning and the role of certain moral norms (cf. Mt 19:1-9). This is the reason why “the Church affirms that underlying so many changes there are some things which do not change and are *ultimately founded upon Christ, *who is the same yesterday and today and for ever”.97 Christ is the “Beginning” who, having taken on human nature, definitively illumines it in its constitutive elements and in its dynamism of charity towards God and neighbour.98

 

[friarjamesosf]

please note I am only being offensive to make a point. Does the Klan have the right to insult leaders of the communities with which they are in colflict by making references between those leaders and lesser species? I hope you answer no. This conduct is a vile demonstration of hate and an insult. **Gay activity is offensive **and is likewise the same form of insult when used in association with terms dear to the hearts of us.

Could you identify “those leaders and lesser species?” What leaders and what “lesser species” are you referring to?

Without knowing for sure to what you are referring, I see another conduct as being a vile demonstration of hate and insult.

Do you think you are really correct when you say that “gay activity” is offensive - offensive to** all **people? Do you really think that every homosexual and heterosexual person is offended by “gay activity?”

What specifically are you calling “terms dear to the heart of us?”
Is the term “freedom” dear to the heart of us? Is the term “justice” dear to the heart of us. If so, wouldn’t the denial of either or both be an insult? Are the words “JUSTICE AND LIBERTY FOR ALL” dear to your heart? If so, wouldn’t the denial of either or both be an insult?

Do you recall the story in the gospel of the woman caught in adultery. The townspeople were getting organized to do to that woman exactly what the Law of Moses prescribed for such women. Do you recall that Jesus came along and for some reason chose NOT to say - “here, give me a stone too, this is morally right to put her to death.” On the other hand, did Jesus say something like - “oh, it’s a new day and a different world - just go ahead and do whatever you want.” No. He merely said - let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Would you be insulted if I asked you what Jesus’ answer was all about?

And I would ask those who believe that God’s law is eternal, unchangeable truth, how do you explain Jesus’ actions?

 

[NoMoreGames]

It is interesting that it says man exists in a culture, but is not defined by it. That means that gay marriage could be allowed in this nation without effecting personal religion at all, doesn’t it?

“The latter (natural law) is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided.”

Don’t you think it is possible this light has been twisted by corrupt men over time?

 

[friarjamesosf]

Mary and Martha were especially bereft, since their male protector Lazrarus was dead, and while we may …

Odd, my bible says that Mary and Martha were sad because Lazarus, their BROTHER was dead. Interesting…

Nowe about homosexuality. Even gay apologists admit that Jews abhored homosexuality, which was one thing they hated about the Greek way of like, not only because they cherished children but because it was a constant aspect of pagan worship, going back to the time of Abraham.

When the Jews were dealing with aspects of pagan worship, they also abhored and forbade by law inter-marriage with all gentiles (pagans.) Of course, this was historically the time in which they were, reportedly, killing thousands, men, women and children, of native dwellers in Canaan in order to take over the land.

Oh, just as a side note, do you think it would be proper today for a married woman, who seemingly cannot bear her husband a child, to tell her husband to sleep with the maid? Just curious as to your thoughts on this.

 

[friarjamesosf]

This is incorrect. You really should look at historical and anthropological evidence…which points to marriage having the purpose of raising the next generation (or the biological result of sexual relations between a man and a woman). I would love to see some credible evidence to the contrary.

If I am not mistaken, your referrence to THE purpose of marriage to raise the next generation has, in itself, made a small, but rather significant change in the last century. That change is contained in The Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.

Without citing the text, the chage was this: the 1917 Code stated that the primary end of marriage was procreation, while a secondary end would be mutual assistance and the remedy for concupiscence.

This was slightly changed in the 1983 edition. The introductory canon (1055) spoke first of the essence of marriage, speaking of it as the establishing between themselves (the couple) a partnership of the whole of life, which is, by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses.

It is after this definition of the relationship that the canon continues to identify other purposes namely, "the procreation and education of offspring.

So, in this situation, the Roman church did give a different perspective to it’s understanding of marriage.

 

[friarjamesosf]

If you’re alluding to Paul’s Letter about the universality of Christ’s message and the seamlessness of his Mystical Body, wow do you misunderstand this passage. (Galatians 3:28?)

Paul was so NOT confused about gender. Nor was he referring to the obliteration, merging, or interchangeability of gender.

It would be so terrific if people referring to Scripture, or quoting it, would get educated about its contextual meaning. The love emanating from God, through Jesus, never included the love of immorality, and never will.

Was he not in fact, referring to the distinctions that humans use on occasion that can fracture the Body of Christ - that we look for the differences between us instead of the similarities?

I would also suggest that the love emanating from God, through Jesus, did and always will include the love and mercy of God which s/he offers to all people, even those who commit immoral acts, and those who define immoral acts?

 

[royal_archer]

Those who feel that way may well do so because of the Judeo-Christian history of “JUBILEE” and because of the things Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, there was also the encounter with the Rich Young Man – who pressed Jesus for a specific answer as to what he needed to do to inherit eternal life (Mark 10.)

By the way, based on what you said above, would the Sermon on the Mount be another example of “leftist ideology?”

I believe you are confusing voluntary giving with compulsory redistribution of resources.

 

[royal_archer]

Could you identify “those leaders and lesser species?” What leaders and what “lesser species” are you referring to?

Without knowing for sure to what you are referring, I see another conduct as being a vile demonstration of hate and insult.

If you walked down the street with a pig with the name of a muslim leader listed on teh side of it, Would muslims have the right to be offended?

Do you think you are really correct when you say that “gay activity” is offensive - offensive to** all **people? Do you really think that every homosexual and heterosexual person is offended by “gay activity?”

I didn’t say “all”. I acknowledge there are some people who are not offended by this activity. Just like I am not offended if you cross your legs and the heal of your foot is pointed towards me. However there are many who are insulted by this activity. In either case it is rude to act in an offensive manner around those who could be offended.

What specifically are you calling “terms dear to the heart of us?”
Is the term “freedom” dear to the heart of us? Is the term “justice” dear to the heart of us. If so, wouldn’t the denial of either or both be an insult? Are the words “JUSTICE AND LIBERTY FOR ALL” dear to your heart? If so, wouldn’t the denial of either or both be an insult?

I was reffering to the term “Marriage”. However the terms “Freedom”, “Justice” and “Liberty” are also near and dear to my heart, especially as a veteran. As such I am offended when people throw these terms around lightly when ever they don’t get their way. These are all part of a orderly society. You can not drive the wrong way down a one way street and claim it as a freedom. Nor can you hurl insults at others in an intrusive manner and call it freedom.

Do you recall the story in the gospel of the woman caught in adultery. The townspeople were getting organized to do to that woman exactly what the Law of Moses prescribed for such women. Do you recall that Jesus came along and for some reason chose NOT to say - “here, give me a stone too, this is morally right to put her to death.” On the other hand, did Jesus say something like - “oh, it’s a new day and a different world - just go ahead and do whatever you want.” No. He merely said - let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Would you be insulted if I asked you what Jesus’ answer was all about?

Good point, let’s not stone those who engage in immoral activity. That doesn’t meen we promote the immoral activity.

And I would ask those who believe that God’s law is eternal, unchangeable truth, how do you explain Jesus’ actions?

Mathew 5:17 'Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Was he not in fact, referring to the distinctions that humans use on occasion that can fracture the Body of Christ - that we look for the differences between us instead of the similarities?

I would also suggest that the love emanating from God, through Jesus, did and always will include the love and mercy of God which s/he offers to all people, even those who commit immoral acts, and those who define immoral acts?

I don’t think your observations are necessarily incompatible with my comments, but they are a looser interpretation. Paul’s actually making a statement about covenant and the Judaic line, not just discussing human behavior. Additionally, Paul’s Christology in Galatians has implications for the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[friarjamesosf]

If you walked down the street with a pig with the name of a muslim leader listed on teh side of it, Would muslims have the right to be offended?

I would think that would be a natural response. I really missed something in your original post - I don’t get what you are taking about here.

I didn’t say “all”. I acknowledge there are some people who are not offended by this activity. Just like I am not offended if you cross your legs and the heal of your foot is pointed towards me. However there are many who are insulted by this activity. In either case it is rude to act in an offensive manner around those who could be offended.

I will then agree in the sense that if a heterosexual couple were
acting in an offensive manner in front of me, I might consider it rude. Are we not talking about common decency here?

I was reffering to the term “Marriage”. However the terms “Freedom”, “Justice” and “Liberty” are also near and dear to my heart, especially as a veteran. As such I am offended when people throw these terms around lightly when ever they don’t get their way.

Let me comment mid-paragraph here. In general, I agree with you - but the extent to which I agree would have to depend on what it means to “throw these terms around lightly.” We probably mean pretty much the same here.

My agreement to that would also depend on what specific things are meant when we say “when ever they don’t get their way.”
What about cases in which “don’t get their way” means that constitutional rights are being denied them. Such as slavery -
or women’s fight for their equal rights - for example, if I am being denied my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, would I being throwing the terms “equality” or “justice” or “freedom” around lightly if I say that those things are not being guaranteed
by the constitution? I hope you don’t think so.

These are all part of a orderly society. You can not drive the wrong way down a one way street and claim it as a freedom. Nor can you hurl insults at others in an intrusive manner and call it freedom.

Let me ask you a question about an orderly society. If there are say, 613 laws on the books. Some of those law deal with real estate and a lot of them deal with proper sexual/marital relations between men and women. Of those, let’s say **20 **of them deal with various immoral sexual activity that involve a heterosexual man and a heterosexual female. One of them deals with various sexual activity of two homosexuals.

Would I be out of line if I got insulted that it seems like the homosexual sexual activity is getting so much attact as immoral and anti-social, anti-family, etc., when the 20 heterosexual situations are not getting the benefit of that attention?

Good point, let’s not stone those who engage in immoral activity. That doesn’t meen we promote the immoral activity.

Personally, I am not asking you to promote that which you consider immoral activity. I am asking you not to deny the opportunity of such activity to those who do not consider it immoral.

Let’s not make claims that homosexual marriage will destroy the earth and “real marriage.” Let’s simply suggest that probably no one wants to have to watch some activity that is offensive to them. If we could stop our wild claims and bickering and agree to intriduce some basic human respect, I think we would be doing a very moral thing for all!

Mathew 5:17 'Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.

…and he completed them by not doing what the traditional written law said to do. He virtually denounced that part of the law.