Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[royal_archer]

Ok, if you acknowledge that there is a civil aspect of marriage (civil meaning controlled by the state), why can’t that aspect of marriage be changed?

I have supported the concept of civil unions. But while they are an aspect of marriage, they are not the same as marriage.

 

[NoMoreGames]

A marriage can never be dissolved. The appearance of a union and the recognition of that union may cease if it is later determined that a valid marriage never existed.

ok, that part has been explained. If the couple has VOWED to each other, God, and everyone present, how can that not be valid? That’s what I can’t understand. Love can fade over time, but that does not mean love was never present.

 

[magdelaine]

Prayers are always appreciated

I completely unerstand the church’s teaching on contraception. In fact, I had that position before I looked into what the chruch taught. It prevents life. How does entering a gay marriage prevent life any more than living as a celibate gay?

People have made so much mention of natural law, and I’ve tried so hard to see how it says homosexuality is immoral but I really just don’t see the connection. And that really could be the root of my lack of understanding of what it says in the first place. Wanna give it another go?

The book I recommended is really good.

But for the moment, how about the Vatican document on same sex "marriage? It begins with a discussion of what we know about human sexuality from Natural Law.
And how about John Heard’s reaction to it?

 

[Methodi]

ok, that part has been explained. If the couple has VOWED to each other, God, and everyone present, how can that not be valid? That’s what I can’t understand. Love can fade over time, but that does not mean love was never present.

I have a problem with that one too, no more games, If a couple gets married in The church at the altar, by a Priest, receives the sacrament of Holy matrimony, I dont see how is isn`t valid, people are geting annullments after yrs of marriage, dont make sense to me

 

[elts1956]

yes this is true. What I meant was that the meaning of the term homosexual/ity was different in biblical times than it is today. Sure being attracted to the same sex was included, but the part the jewish community looked down on was the greek concept of teenagers sleeping with everyone and every ones (which is how same sex is included). This is why even the greeks did not have homosexual marriage. That’s like saying promiscuous marriage, which is different that the current concept of homosexual marriage.

Are you basing your beliefs on human interpretation and belief? Human interpretation is quite fallible and does change, quite often, but the word of God and the Church’s teaching of those “Words” does not. Homosexual Acts in any form are wrong and sinful.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Are you basing your beliefs on human interpretation and belief? Human interpretation is quite fallible and does change, quite often, but the word of God and the Church’s teaching of those “Words” does not. Homosexual Acts in any form are wrong and sinful.

Not off of human interpretation and belief, but off of history of the meaning of language. History is not a belief.

The church has been controlled by humans since Christ left. Human’s are corrupt. Language has been a barrier since Babel. I’m not saying the Word changes, but the language of the Word does, as do the people who interpret it then say their interpretation is infallible by rooting it in the Church. If the Church’s teaching are infallible and do not change, why have things like Vatican (I & II) and other inter-religious meetings?

 

[elts1956]

Not off of human interpretation and belief, but off of history of the meaning of language. History is not a belief.

The church has been controlled by humans since Christ left. Human’s are corrupt. Language has been a barrier since Babel. I’m not saying the Word changes, but the language of the Word does, as do the people who interpret it then say their interpretation is infallible by rooting it in the Church. If the Church’s teaching are infallible and do not change, why have things like Vatican (I & II) and other inter-religious meetings?

Conclaves, Councils are usually held to either support, or clarify Church teachings. Much of what came out of Vatican II has been either deliberately, or not, misinterpreted. Many have been led astray by thinking they have been told that their individual conscience has higher priority in the area of morals than does Chruch Teaching. Although some clergy have caused what was meant by Vatican II to be skewed, if one truly studies Church teachings, one will see that original Church Doctrine has never been contradicted.

 

[elts1956]

Not off of human interpretation and belief, but off of history of the meaning of language. History is not a belief.

The church has been controlled by humans since Christ left. Human’s are corrupt. Language has been a barrier since Babel. I’m not saying the Word changes, but the language of the Word does, as do the people who interpret it then say their interpretation is infallible by rooting it in the Church. If the Church’s teaching are infallible and do not change, why have things like Vatican (I & II) and other inter-religious meetings?

If you are Catholic then you will believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, when it is teaching doctrine, faith and morals,

As far as History is concerned, unless it can be proven through documentation, History can be in error, Even after that it is dependent on individual interpretation.

 

[NoMoreGames]

If you are Catholic then you will believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, when it is teaching doctrine, faith and morals,

As far as History is concerned, unless it can be proven through documentation, History can be in error, Even after that it is dependent on individual interpretation.

I can be Catholic and also be realistic that humans are corrupt and that those humans can take places of power in the Church, and therefore the teachings. If the teachings are infallible, why do they change?.

The verse about a man not lying in bed with another man. Is that idiom used to describe marriage? That is typically referred to in the Bible as “one flesh” or something signifying unity, not simply going to bed. It is more logical that the verse refers to someone along the lines of promiscuity and prostitution than monogamous marriage.

 

[elvisman]

The church actually teaches that civil divorce is acceptable if it is the only viable option. (Something I wasn’t aware of until this topic) So apparently marriage CAN be broken.

WRONG.
**Church doesn’t recognize a civil "marriage". The dissolution of the civil marriage only that - a dissolution of a civil union.

A marriage in the Church can only be nullified (NOT dissolved) if - and only IF a sacramental marriage never took place.

**As I explained to you already - a civil marriage holds no more water in the eyes of God than a civil union.

 

[eichenb2]

I can be Catholic and also be realistic that humans are corrupt and that those humans can take places of power in the Church, and therefore the teachings. If the teachings are infallible, why do they change?.

The verse about a man not lying in bed with another man. Is that idiom used to describe marriage? That is typically referred to in the Bible as “one flesh” or something signifying unity, not simply going to bed. It is more logical that the verse refers to someone along the lines of promiscuity and prostitution than monogamous marriage.

The magisterium says that marriage is between one man and one woman. Also, extra-marital sex is sinful. These are the rules and the based on Sacred Scripture and Natural Law. They will never change! If one feels the Church is wrong, then they should consider joining the Episcopal church. They needs members.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The magisterium says that marriage is between one man and one woman. Also, extra-marital sex is sinful. These are the rules and the based on Sacred Scripture and Natural Law. They will never change! If one feels the Church is wrong, then they should consider joining the Episcopal church. They needs members.

I know that hasn’t changed, and I understand it probably never will, but that wasn’t what this thread was really about

My question was, if something is infallible, how can it be changed over time (not necessarily marriage). For example, cremation. Not long ago, the church did not support cremation because of the resurrection of the body. If that is an infallible idea (since the church taught it) why is cremation allowed now?

 

[magdelaine]

I can be Catholic and also be realistic that humans are corrupt and that those humans can take places of power in the Church, and therefore the teachings. If the teachings are infallible, why do they change?.

The verse about a man not lying in bed with another man. Is that idiom used to describe marriage? That is typically referred to in the Bible as “one flesh” or something signifying unity, not simply going to bed. It is more logical that the verse refers to someone along the lines of promiscuity and prostitution than monogamous marriage.

It is actually a real miracle than in Her teachings on faith and morals the Church has never changed her position, not because of the sinners that make up Her body but in spite of them. There is no other explanation than the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the fulfillment of the promise that Jesus made to Peter " On you I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

There have been instances in the history of the Church where corrupt Popes have been on the verge of changing Her doctrine and in one case, a Pope changed his mind suddenly (and made a large number of political enemies) and in another a Pope dropped dead before he could do it.

If you studied Church history, this theme would become clear.

 

[elvisman]

I know that hasn’t changed, and I understand it probably never will, but that wasn’t what this thread was really about

My question was, if something is infallible, how can it be changed over time (not necessarily marriage). For example, cremation. Not long ago, the church did not support cremation because of the resurrection of the body. If that is an infallible idea (since the church taught it) why is cremation allowed now?

Cremation was never formally defined as wrong by the Church. It was never a sin - so what are you talking about?

 

[NoMoreGames]

WRONG.
Church doesn’t recognize a civil "marriage". The dissolution of the civil marriage only that - a dissolution of a civil union.

A marriage in the Church can only be nullified (NOT dissolved) if - and only IF a sacramental marriage never took place.

As I explained to you already - a civil marriage holds no more water in the eyes of God than a civil union.

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?

 

[Methodi]

Cremation was never formally defined as wrong by the Church. It was never a sin - so what are you talking about?

The Church used to say that if U were`t buried in a Catholic cemetery, You had no chance of going to heaven

 

[RyanL]

Did jesus say it was ok to eat crab?

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?

I know this needs more of an explanation, but the homosexuality referred to in the bible is different.

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

In biblical times, the term homosexuality referred to what we would now call “the gay lifestyle,” that is sleeping around with anyone and everyone. There is no mention of monogamous gay relationships as they exist today (which are the ones that have to do with marriage). I’m not saying what was called homosexuality then doesn’t exist now, it most definitely does at it remains as wrong as it did then (just as straight promiscuity). Jesus spoke out against so many sins (prostitution, dishonesty, selfishness), why do we have to wait till the letters to hear about homosexuality?

And that explains Romans 1:26 how, exactly?

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?

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?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[royal_archer]

ok, that part has been explained. If the couple has VOWED to each other, God, and everyone present, how can that not be valid? That’s what I can’t understand. Love can fade over time, but that does not mean love was never present.

Unless one party entered the marriage fraudulently, or was already married, or did not have the mental capacity to enter into the marriage.

 

[elvisman]

The Church used to say that if U were`t buried in a Catholic cemetery, You had no chance of going to heaven

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.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Cremation was never formally defined as wrong by the Church. It was never a sin - so what are you talking about?

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.