Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Florida_mom]

To start of, I’m not being sarcastic. That being said, are those who are against gay marriage also against the freedom of religion? I don’t like how the emails this site sends out places it in the same category as things like abortion, and euthanasia. Those two violate human life, which is universal to all humans. Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not take away life nor limit the rights of others. I’m curious as to why people believe that gay marriage should not be allowed in the country when it falls more so under the category of freedom of religion.

Actually, from a point of pure honesty–it does take away life.

If you look at the churches stance on contraceptives, early withdrawal and masturbation–all these waste life. It takes the act that is meant to be open to life and produce life and eliminates the possibilty all together.

Clearly, when a couple unites–they would consummate their union. Biologically–a same sex union would NEVER be open to life.

One can bring up infertility–but the church is not anti-those who are infertile.

Fertile or not–a same sex union can never produce a life and are not open to it at all.

So definitely in regards to the male–union, it will take away life with each and ever act to consummate their couple-hood.

 

[elvisman]

so something that never took place is the only thing that can be nullified? Now can it be nullified if it never existed in the first place. There was a post in this tread stating the church allowed civil divorce (quoted fro the Catechism). If is doesn’t recognize civil marriage (or union, which ever term you prefer), how can it recognize a dissolvement of something it didn’t recognize in the first place?

Last time, NMG -

Sacramental marriage can never be dissolved. It can only be nullified (voided) if a sacramental marriage never took place. This could be for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) duress, drunkenness or a person not being havoiong all of their faculties.

Civil marriage can be dissolved because it is not recognized by the Church.

 

[royal_archer]

so something that never took place is the only thing that can be nullified? Now can it be nullified if it never existed in the first place. There was a post in this tread stating the church allowed civil divorce (quoted fro the Catechism). If is doesn’t recognize civil marriage (or union, which ever term you prefer), how can it recognize a dissolvement of something it didn’t recognize in the first place?

Marriage is a union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God. That does not need a civil record. However it is expected that if the two have full intent they will also get the civl aspect recorded. That civil aspect is subserviant to the spiritual aspect. Going down to the court house and ripping up the paper does as much good as ripping the wedding portrait. If the courts no longer recognize the marriage, it does not change the spiritual nature of the marriage. an annulment does not disolve a marriage it only removes the record for a marriage which never existed and corrects the innacurate record.

 

[Florida_mom]

But it’s the catholic position that homosexuality is immoral, not society. All of your arguments to prevent it in this country are still religious, no matter how much you try to make it seem like they are not. It might crumble your perception of society, but not necessarily society itself, since that society is based, in part, on freedom.

And to say that gay marriages are not rooted in family and are therefore chiefly for pleasure is a rash generalization. Gay couples can be long term just like any others.

On that point, the Catholics are not the only religion who find homosexuality immoral.

My arguments to prevent it are thus:

It is not biological union–it is a misuse of your biology.

It is not right-denying and thus not an equal rights issue. (i.e. The interracial marriage issue was never an issue of Reproductive biology. A man wanted to marry a woman and a woman wanted to marry a man. Skin color did not change the biology of the union.)

Getting a marriage license does not include “love” within the context nor getting married at the courthouse. (So thus, the argument to marry who you love is not a right promised to anyone in this country. That is purely a social aspect.)

 

[NoMoreGames]

Yes, He did, actually. See, e.g., Matt 15:11.

If you’re looking for references regarding the Levitical law, might I commend for your reading pleasure pretty much the entire epistle to the Galatians?

Says you. I’m sure that’s why it’s only promiscuous gay sex which has historically been called Sodomy…right?

I admit defeat on the crab sodomy entails far more than just promiscuous gay sex.

And that explains Romans 1:26 how, exactly?

And likiwise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another."

I think what I said explains that was well. Lust is always wrong, regardless of who it’s between. That statement can just as easily be explained by the fast that rampant teenage sex with any and everyone was (rightfully) considered wrong. I don’t understand how that makes any statement to marriage.

Say…I don’t suppose you’d be willing to tell us what the purpose of the reproductive system is, would you? Is the main purpose pleasure? Bonding? What is the main biological purpose of the reproductive system?

obviously the main purpose is reproduction, but that doesn’t mean only function. Why did God put so many nerve ending on the surfaces of the ares if it was not also meant to feel good? I don’t understand what this has to do with denying social gay marriage.

Oh…and would you also please tell me why bulimia is wrong (assuming you think it is)? Kinda’ makes you want to take the position that there’s nothing wrong with bulimia…a position you didn’t hold two minutes ago…doesn’t it?

Why is bulimia wrong? It destroys your body, makes you wither away and die. Ok maybe i’m just tired, but i really don’t see the connection, or why you think I would have suddenly changed my perception of bulimia?

 

[elvisman]

catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/cremat.htm

I’m fairly certain it was.

emphasis on “promulgated” That’s when something is formally declared after a change.

As I said - it was never considered a sin because, if you read on, the cfanon goes on to say that "the Holy Church permits cremation in exceptional circumstances, as in times of epidemic, war, etc."
Sin is never “permitted”.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Marriage is a union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God. That does not need a civil record. However it is expected that if the two have full intent they will also get the civl aspect recorded. That civil aspect is subserviant to the spiritual aspect. Going down to the court house and ripping up the paper does as much good as ripping the wedding portrait. If the courts no longer recognize the marriage, it does not change the spiritual nature of the marriage. an annulment does not disolve a marriage it only removes the record for a marriage which never existed and corrects the innacurate record.

ok, i think i somewhat understand. somewhat…

thank you

 

[Florida_mom]

so you’re saying all gays are suffering and evil?

But once again, that is from a christian standpoint, not a social one. Certain types of Hinduism worship cows. Is the nation preventing them from doing that? Nope, nor should they. Same situation with gay marriage.

You are comparing homosexuality with worshipping a cow?

How about this–if you got married and had cow at your reception, you would obligate a hindu guest to eat it?

This is the position I am presently in. Only I am a Catholic deep in my faith who has a brother who is committing to his partner this summer.

I do not want to be judgemental, we find his partne to be a great person and we treat him like family.

There is a compromise for me, but they may not like it and I may appear bigoted. (The compromise according to my priest is that it is okay to participate in the celebration as a non-judgemental and loving sister but to not participate as a guest at the ceremony as that would be considered an endorsement of said union.)

If you wont force your guest to consume cow as acceptance of your choices–why am I considered a bigot when I don’t wish to endorse something but neither prevent or vocally object to their choices?

Why am I a bigot?

I won’t force a Hindu to eat a cow, but I am a bigot for being a Catholic who would prefer to sit out on the ceremony. What gives?

Is that not forcing your world view upon me. Forcing me to accept your rights by physically being present or refusing to talk to me forever?

Can you answer that for me? (real present issue for me–and I am curious as to how you would respond if you had a devoted Catholic in the family who is in my shoes!)

 

[eichenb2]

Actually, from a point of pure honesty–it does take away life.

If you look at the churches stance on contraceptives, early withdrawal and masturbation–all these waste life. It takes the act that is meant to be open to life and produce life and eliminates the possibilty all together.

Clearly, when a couple unites–they would consummate their union. Biologically–a same sex union would NEVER be open to life.

One can bring up infertility–but the church is not anti-those who are infertile.

Fertile or not–a same sex union can never produce a life and are not open to it at all.

So definitely in regards to the male–union, it will take away life with each and ever act to consummate their couple-hood.

Adultery and fornication seem, to me, to be more analogous to homosexual sex. Adultery and fornication can be consentual. Does that mean the Church should condone?

 

[NoMoreGames]

**As I said - it was never considered a sin **because, if you read on, the cfanon goes on to say that “the Holy Church permits cremation in exceptional circumstances, as in times of epidemic, war, etc."
Sin is never "permitted”.

Pope Saint Innocent I (401-417) said that the violation of this order is one of the most serious scandals, and it will never be changed. No dispensation can be given, adds the pope, except in the case of necessity (epidemic, war, etc.).

When the barbarians converted to the Catholic faith, the Church obliged them to bury their dead and to stop burning them, even under death penalty as it was at the time of Charlemagne (eight century).

As Christianity spread, proportionally the practice of burial prevailed over cremation

in the very line you quote, it says that the pope said it was a serious scandal to cremate except in those specific times. If the church didn’t consider it a sin, why even preach against it in the first place? Isn’t everything the church teaches is wrong considered a sin?

 

[Methodi]

Please provide proof for that comment because some of the martyrs were devoured by lions. They weren’t even buried. Some martyrs were burned alive (cremated, as it were).

So, if the church officially said what you claim it said - prove it.

Alright, this is from an old catechicm,by Rev William Cogan, a catholic should be buried in the consecrated ground of a catholic cemetery, this is the law of the church , also it says catholics are strictly forbidden to be creamated

 

[eichenb2]

A rhetorical question:
Does God love people who go to Hell?

 

[NoMoreGames]

You are comparing homosexuality with worshipping a cow?

How about this–if you got married and had cow at your reception, you would obligate a hindu guest to eat it?

This is the position I am presently in. Only I am a Catholic deep in my faith who has a brother who is committing to his partner this summer.

I do not want to be judgemental, we find his partne to be a great person and we treat him like family.

There is a compromise for me, but they may not like it and I may appear bigoted. (The compromise according to my priest is that it is okay to participate in the celebration as a non-judgemental and loving sister but to not participate as a guest at the ceremony as that would be considered an endorsement of said union.)

If you wont force your guest to consume cow as acceptance of your choices–why am I considered a bigot when I don’t wish to endorse something but neither prevent or vocally object to their choices?

Why am I a bigot?

I won’t force a Hindu to eat a cow, but I am a bigot for being a Catholic who would prefer to sit out on the ceremony. What gives?

Is that not forcing your world view upon me. Forcing me to accept your rights by physically being present or refusing to talk to me forever?

Can you answer that for me? (real present issue for me–and I am curious as to how you would respond if you had a devoted Catholic in the family who is in my shoes!)

I do not thing you are not at all a bigot in this case. You are sticking to your faith. Now, standing up in the middle of the ceremony to tell your brother and his partner how sinful they are and should not have the freedom to do this, that would be a bigot. You are not taking action to prevent and limit their rights. I think your bother is at fault here if he plan to never speak to you again. You are accepting his rights by doing nothing to stop the ceremony, he needs to be equally acceptant of your right to not endorse it. I’m am very sorry to hear about your situation.

If i was you brother, I would record the ceremony/reception, take tons of pictures, talk about it with you as much as you were conformable, but still complete respect the fact you did not feel comfortable (even if it wasn’t a matter of comfort, in fact morally speaking is an even more viable reason than comfort) actually attending.

 

[NoMoreGames]

A rhetorical question:
Does God love people who go to Hell?

Of course. They simply don’t love him. Well, they do for one brief moment at judgment when they have no choice but to love in the overwhelming presence of God, but then go to the other extreme and hate Him for eternity, not realizing their own actions sent them to Hell.

 

[Florida_mom]

First of, I find it funny that you say you don’t bash gays then call me typical when you know absolutely nothing about me. I’m not even liberal, I just want to be able to spend my life with the person I’m in love with, legally. There are heterosexual people who whore, and flaunt sexuality and abuse substances, but they can still get married within the church, and all I want to do it be able to commit myself in front of God to the man I love, but I cant because of certain interpretations of translations.

My partner and I are both very strong Catholics. We talk about our faith every day, go to church together, and don’t have sex. If i didn’t say he was a male, you would think we had a holy relationship, so why should it be any different?

Second, It has NOTHING to do with silencing the church, it’s about not being silenced. For some, maybe, but you even said it’s a minority of a minority, so I dont think you are justified in saying that.

As far as freedom of religion, technically not having a faith is also a belief system.

My brother is getting committed in a church (non-Catholic–since they arent) in Key West this summer by a minister!

On the note about marrying the one you love, legally…I often here L-O-V-E tossed around in conjunction with legalized marriage.

At least in my state–even under the new passed definition of marriage, that word does not appear anywhere.

Now I am not foolish to beleive that most folks dont marry for love, but that as an argument to why you legally should get to marry invalidates the argument because legalized love is not promised to anyone.

And from a scientific standpoint, your union is not biologically correct.

While it is great that you guys are abstaining, I am at a lost at how you can be very strong Catholics who are very much living counter to the church teachings. While you are abstaining, you are still in a relationship as a gay couple who intend to marry if you could.

You are not being silenced.

 

[friarjamesosf]

Please provide proof for that comment because some of the martyrs were devoured by lions. They weren’t even buried. Some martyrs were burned alive (cremated, as it were).

So, if the church officially said what you claim it said - prove it.

In the official commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1176, Paragraph 3 says the following:

1. “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

In the accompanying commentary the following appears:

“The third paragraph of the canon restates the Church’s preference that bodies be buried; however, cremation is no longer forbidden unless it is chosen for reasons contrary to Christian teaching,”

Would anyone consider the use of the phrase “no longer forbidden” to suggest that it was at one time?

 

[elvisman]

Pope Saint Innocent I (401-417) said that the violation of this order is one of the most serious scandals, and it will never be changed. No dispensation can be given, adds the pope, except in the case of necessity (epidemic, war, etc.).

When the barbarians converted to the Catholic faith, the Church obliged them to bury their dead and to stop burning them, even under death penalty as it was at the time of Charlemagne (eight century).

As Christianity spread, proportionally the practice of burial prevailed over cremation

in the very line you quote, it says that the pope said it was a serious scandal to cremate except in those specific times. If the church didn’t consider it a sin, why even preach against it in the first place? Isn’t everything the church teaches is wrong considered a sin?

**It was the reasons behind cremation that were condemned. Pagans usually cremated their dead. **
**You are permitted to be cremated. But, if you are doing it as some kind of protest against the Church or because of some bizarre pagan belief - it isn’t condoned.
That’s why the scattering of ashes is not permitted. There is smply no Christian precedent for it.

 

[eichenb2]

You are comparing homosexuality with worshipping a cow?

How about this–if you got married and had cow at your reception, you would obligate a hindu guest to eat it?

This is the position I am presently in. Only I am a Catholic deep in my faith who has a brother who is committing to his partner this summer.

I do not want to be judgemental, we find his partne to be a great person and we treat him like family.

There is a compromise for me, but they may not like it and I may appear bigoted. (The compromise according to my priest is that it is okay to participate in the celebration as a non-judgemental and loving sister but to not participate as a guest at the ceremony as that would be considered an endorsement of said union.)

If you wont force your guest to consume cow as acceptance of your choices–why am I considered a bigot when I don’t wish to endorse something but neither prevent or vocally object to their choices?

Why am I a bigot?

I won’t force a Hindu to eat a cow, but I am a bigot for being a Catholic who would prefer to sit out on the ceremony. What gives?

Is that not forcing your world view upon me. Forcing me to accept your rights by physically being present or refusing to talk to me forever?

Can you answer that for me? (real present issue for me–and I am curious as to how you would respond if you had a devoted Catholic in the family who is in my shoes!)

You have to love your brother. However, homosexual sex is grave matter. If engaged willfully and with knowledge of its gravity, one will go to Hell (without repentance and the desire to stop). If you believe what the Church teaches, you will share this regularly with him. It would be extremely UNloving for you not to do so! As a new Catholic, I must say (with all due respect) that I find this attitude scandalous. Catholic teaching is clear! Please don’t try to complicate it.

 

[Florida_mom]

I do not thing you are not at all a bigot in this case. You are sticking to your faith. Now, standing up in the middle of the ceremony to tell your brother and his partner how sinful they are and should not have the freedom to do this, that would be a bigot. You are not taking action to prevent and limit their rights. I think your bother is at fault here if he plan to never speak to you again. You are accepting his rights by doing nothing to stop the ceremony, he needs to be equally acceptant of your right to not endorse it. I’m am very sorry to hear about your situation.

If i was you brother, I would record the ceremony/reception, take tons of pictures, talk about it with you as much as you were conformable, but still complete respect the fact you did not feel comfortable (even if it wasn’t a matter of comfort, in fact morally speaking is an even more viable reason than comfort) actually attending.

Okay-- I think i love you!

haha—I wish it were that easy. THis is how it was presented to me. My DH has spoken with his partner and we are mostly on the same page.

However–it seems folks talk around me versus checking in with me to see how I feel.

Right now I have the invitation, and I have been ifnormed that I may be asked to be an attendant at which my mother has voluntary said I shouldnt have a probelm.

It is growing inot a problem that it will be better not to go at all.

And my sister–thinks I am a bigot.

 

[elvisman]

In the official commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1176, Paragraph 3 says the following:

1. “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

In the accompanying commentary the following appears:

“The third paragraph of the canon restates the Church’s preference that bodies be buried; however, cremation is no longer forbidden unless it is chosen for reasons contrary to Christian teaching,”

Would anyone consider the use of the phrase “no longer forbidden” to suggest that it was at one time?

Read the original post by Methodi. I wasn’t talking about cremation - I was responding to this:**
"The Church used to say that if U were`t buried in a Catholic cemetery, You had no chance of going to heaven"