Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

You’re right about your initial statement. The various parts of our bodies have particular functions. Objectively, it would make as much sense, biologically speaking, to stick it in an ear.

You’re confusing biology with reproduction. Reproductively speaking, it makes as much sense to sick it in an ear. In terms of biology, there is much more to consider than the reproductive system. As you stated, the nervous system is not part of the reproductive system (though it is required for its function), but that does not mean it is not biological. Non reproductive sex can be just as beneficial biologically speaking (gotta have my peptide phenylethylamine, so to speak) as reproductive sex, just in different aspects

Want to guess why that’s been very acceptable from the government’s standpoint, historically?

because families bring new citizens into the world. and yet couldn’t gay couples save the government money as well by adopting kids that would probably otherwise end up on the streets (if they get jobs they pay taxes as opposed to being homeless) or in jail (and jail is really expensive to keep up)

 

[NoMoreGames]

And my sister is Catholic!!! Hahahaha! Thats the irony. I often forget as she is very much not practicing except when taking communion and my childrens baptisms.

wow that is ironic. And my paris we call them C&Es, but i guess she’s more of a C&B

My brother would be very defeated if I did not attend AT ALL in that he would feel it is a judgement on him. His partner is much more understanding–but hes wayyy more stable.

Do you still consider attending the reception as you endorsing it? Could you just opt of out the ceremony itself, or maybe even just the vows?

 

[NoMoreGames]

That’s why he says in John 7:24 that we are to judge* rightly*. If we can differentiate, we are supposed to judge.
What we are not to do is judge somebody’s heart. Only God sees what’s in the heart.

could you lighten up on the color? if you can not see into some ones heart, how can you judge at all. I think what was supposed to be mean was that you have your beliefs, but do not measure people by how they fit into your beliefs. How can you judge a specific individual on any level if you can not know their heart?

 

[RyanL]

You’re confusing biology with reproduction.

Maybe poor word choice. Maybe not.

Reproductively speaking, it makes as much sense to sick it in an ear.

Reproductively speaking, it makes as much sense as all same-sex sexual activity and masturbation.

So we’ve got that…er…straight at least.

In terms of biology, there is much more to consider than the reproductive system. As you stated, the nervous system is not part of the reproductive system (though it is required for its function), but that does not mean it is not biological.

The reproductive system is part of your biology.

Non reproductive sex can be just as beneficial biologically speaking (gotta have my peptide phenylethylamine, so to speak) as reproductive sex, just in different aspects

Is sex how a person gets love?

because families bring new citizens into the world. and yet couldn’t gay couples save the government money as well by adopting kids that would probably otherwise end up on the streets (if they get jobs they pay taxes as opposed to being homeless) or in jail (and jail is really expensive to keep up)

Same sex couples cannot beget new lives, only tend to the ones in being. A brother and sister couple could do the same for an orphan. Are you proposing we should marry them for that reason?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

How can you judge a specific individual on any level if you can not know their heart?

Because Christians are not moral relativists who think right and wrong is based exclusively on subjective feeling.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[elts1956]

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.

Then you don’t believe in the protection of the Church and its teachings by the Holy Spirit?
Please give an example of a teaching of the Church that has changed.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The reproductive system is part of your biology.

Is sex how a person gets love?

you as well as me understand part vs whole, primary function vs, all functions.

your reproductive system is part of biology. just because part of your biology is not satisfied by an action does not mean your biology does not benefit. I’m a runner, however, running has not made my brain any better at retaining information. Does that mean running does not benefit my body?

Sex is not love. Love is not physical. Love cannot be received through a biological function. You can express it that way, but it is just that, an expression. Is there a connection somewhere? Love is not connected to biology.

Same sex couples cannot beget new lives, only tend to the ones in being. A brother and sister couple could do the same for an orphan. Are you proposing we should marry them for that reason?

But you’re making the assumption that the main desire for gay marriage is to raise a family. The government exists for the people, not to gain power by encouraging couples to have babies.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Because Christians are not moral relativists who think right and wrong is based exclusively on subjective feeling.

they don’t have to be. action is right or wrong. but to judge a person based on the actions is not right, a person is what is inside of their heart. judge the action as much as you want, but don’t make it personal.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Then you don’t believe in the protection of the Church and its teachings by the Holy Spirit?
Please give an example of a teaching of the Church that has changed.

Something can be protected without being protected infallibly. With the logic that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit and therefore can make no mistakes, i have the Holy Spirit in my from confirmation, does that mean I’m guaranteed not to make mistakes? Of course not, simply guided.

Communion rails, kneeling throughout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Mass in Latin. They all have changed.

 

[elts1956]

Something can be protected without being protected infallibly. With the logic that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit and therefore can make no mistakes, i have the Holy Spirit in my from confirmation, does that mean I’m guaranteed not to make mistakes? Of course not, simply guided. Well I’m happy we have that straight.Communion rails, kneeling throughout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Mass in Latin. They all have changed.

Communion rails, kneeling througout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Mass in Latin; those actions do not a Mass make. It is the Consecration and Sacrifice of the Mass that is the Mass.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Communion rails, kneeling througout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Mass in Latin; those actions do not a Mass make. It is the Consecration and Sacrifice of the Mass that is the Mass.

Very true, but the Church did institute them at one point and no longer does. That’s a change.

 

[RyanL]

Is there a connection somewhere?

I said the reproductive system is for reproduction. You said it has another biological purpose – peptide phenylethylamine. I asked if sex was how you get love. You responded with…well…whatever…and then ended with this:

Love is not connected to biology.

We’re hylomorphic beings. That’s a Church teaching – and good philosophy. At first you said you were Catholic – are you a Manichean now?

Like I said, you lack the factual and philosophical background to meaningfully engage this debate. You’ve been contrary for the mere sake of being contrary. I’m not sure how much longer I’m going to interact with you because of it.

But you’re making the assumption that the main desire for gay marriage is to raise a family. The government exists for the people, not to gain power by encouraging couples to have babies.

So here’s how it went.

As a reason why the government should marry gay couples despite their inability to beget new life, you said this:

couldn’t gay couples save the government money as well by adopting kids that would probably otherwise end up on the streets?

In response, I said this:

A brother and sister couple could do the same for an orphan. Are you proposing we should marry them for that reason?

You replied by saying something about me making assumptions. I just don’t get your train of thought.

In any case, the government exists to protect the people. You want it to be the nice police. I disagree, and take the historically American position that the smaller the government the freer the people.

Like I said, I don’t know how much more I’m going to interact on this thread. Besides, it will be locked in any event when it gets to 1000 posts…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[elts1956]

Something can be protected without being protected infallibly. With the logic that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit and therefore can make no mistakes, i have the Holy Spirit in my from confirmation, does that mean I’m guaranteed not to make mistakes? Of course not, simply guided.

Communion rails, kneeling throughout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Mass in Latin. They all have changed.

they don’t have to be. action is right or wrong. but to judge a person based on the actions is not right, a person is what is inside of their heart. judge the action as much as you want, but don’t make it personal.

In spite of good intentions moral wrongs, actions included, are committed every second of every day. One can commiserate and empathize with the wrong doer, taking into consideration s/his intention, but in the end all are responsible for their actions to Civil law and both actions and thoughts to the Spiritual.

 

[RyanL]

Very true, but the Church did institute them at one point and no longer does. That’s a change.

Juvenile. Dogma and doctrine are not discipline and architecture. Do try to discuss theology like an adult.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NoMoreGames]

I said the reproductive system is for reproduction. You said it has another biological purpose – peptide phenylethylamine. I asked if sex was how you get love. You responded with…well…whatever…and then ended with this:

We’re hylomorphic beings. That’s a Church teaching – and good philosophy. At first you said you were Catholic – are you a Manichean now?

Like I said, you lack the factual and philosophical background to meaningfully engage this debate. You’ve been contrary for the mere sake of being contrary. I’m not sure how much longer I’m going to interact with you because of it.

Where did I contradict my self. I said the reprodictive system had other functions, I provided one. I’m not sure how my answer to sex’s connection to love makes me “ontrary for the mere sake of being contrary” If you don’t want to then stop. You’re not being forced to contribute.

So here’s how it went.

As a reason why the government should marry gay couples despite their inability to beget new life, you said this:

In response, I said this:

You replied by saying something about me making assumptions. I just don’t get your train of thought.

In any case, the government exists to protect the people. You want it to be the nice police. I disagree, and take the historically American position that the smaller the government the freer the people.

Like I said, I don’t know how much more I’m going to interact on this thread. Besides, it will be locked in any event when it gets to 1000 posts…

A gay couple raising a child is the same as any couple rasing a child, but rasing a child is not maraige. You seemed to make that assumption by saying that a brother and sister should be able to get maried (by my logic) just because the raise a child, but that is not even my logic.

It exists to protect the rights of people. How is suggesting there are no non religious grounds on which to deny governmental gay marriage asking the government to be anything else than what it was designed to be? The smaller the government the better. By expanding who can be legally married, they are shrinking their level of control. looks like we finally agree

Then stop wasting posts

 

[elts1956]

Very true, but the Church did institute them at one point and no longer does. That’s a change.

So, Communion rails, kneeling througout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Mass in Latin are, in your sphere, doctrine and dogma? I don’t know all the ins and outs of what is infallible, what is doctrine, dogma of the Church, but it looks like I can separate fact from fiction.

There is a lot to learn about the Church, its rituals, laws, pronouncements etc., It would take a life time just to read all the information available, much less understand it, but I have tried to get a handle on the basics of Church teaching. It is very difficult to understand the distinction between small t tradition (some things can be changed) and upper case T Tradition.(Those teachings that have never been changed and never will be.)

Start reading. God Bless.

 

[RyanL]

My wife told me to quit being such a snit and just say what I want to say.

Ok. Here’s the quick-and-dirty.

It really is as easy as tab A is designed for slot B, and not another tab A. This remains the case even if tab A can “fit” into slots X, Y, or Z. Your reproductive system was made for reproducing, just like your digestive system was made for eating. Bulimia is false eating just like masturbation (including same-sex mutual masturbation or contracepted sex) is false sex. They get the pleasure of the act while deliberately frustrating the ends for which the system is designed.

It really is as easy as the ontological (not necessarily immediate) ability to beget a family making a legitimate government interest worthy of tax benefits.

It really is as easy as the government not having an interest in what two guys do in the bedroom. Love, while nice if it’s there, is not the fundamental basis of marriage – particularly from the government’s standpoint. There’s no legitimate reason to send my tax dollars to it, and being taxed when it’s not necessary is not “small government.”

And so you remember, none of these are religiously based arguments. So you know what to do with that canard.

It’s not about equality. It’s not about freedom. It’s not even about tolerance. Tolerance you have, and have in spades. It’s about acceptance, and that is something you’re just never going to get from the Catholic Church. Maybe that’s a bit gruff, but thems the facts.

If the Church is wrong about this, everything else unravels and it is not the Church at all. Pull the thread of moral authority and infallibility goes out the window, ordinary and papal, not to mention the general teaching authority of the magisterium, the councils, etc., etc. Strip all that away and what’s Catholic about what you have left?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NoMoreGames]

Juvenile. Dogma and doctrine are not discipline and architecture. Do try to discuss theology like an adult.

God Bless,
RyanL

These personal attacks really need to stop.

Look at it this way. The church is infallible, that is, un changing because it is correct…but only in doctrine (so only partially infallible as a whole?). Ok, so the doctrine comes from the Bible. But the Bible is interpreted literally in some cases (the Eucharist) and symbolically in others (eye for an eye). Who decides what is interpreted as what? The church. So the church claims sole control over interoperation of the source from which it’s claims it’s infallibility. Interesting.

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades** will not overcome it.[c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

So who’s to say the church was not corrupted early on and never even taught the truth about certain aspects (because it didn’t have to have a teaching on them because they weren’t an issue at the time)? But it wouldn’t matter because what every it says is obviously true. And yet it has control over the interoperation of it’s source of infallibility.

You say i’m uneducated and un informed? I say you only look at one side (your articles were from the center of republican news, of course they’re going to show any and every negative aspect of something they don’t agree with) and are scared to step out.

The funny thing is that none of this in any way affects any of our ability to love God.**

 

[RyanL]

Look at it this way. The church is infallible, that is, un changing because it is correct…but only in doctrine (so only partially infallible as a whole?). Ok, so the doctrine comes from the Bible. But the Bible is interpreted literally in some cases (the Eucharist) and symbolically in others (eye for an eye). Who decides what is interpreted as what? The church. So the church claims sole control over interoperation of the source from which it’s claims it’s infallibility. Interesting.

I’m sorry – I thought you said you were Catholic. If I knew you were Protestant I would have made a different argument.

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not**** overcome it.[c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

So who’s to say the church was not corrupted early on and never even taught the truth about certain aspects (because it didn’t have to have a teaching on them because they weren’t an issue at the time)? Did you really just post those two things back-to-back? That’s called cognitive dissonance.

But it wouldn’t matter because what every it says is obviously true. And yet it has control over the interoperation of it’s source of infallibility.

Yes, the Church is the Body of Christ. She speaks with His authority. She is infallible in her teachings. Question it if you wish, but just know why Catholics believe her. It’s a spiral argument.

You say i’m uneducated and un informed? I say you only look at one side (your articles were from the center of republican news, of course they’re going to show any and every negative aspect of something they don’t agree with) and are scared to step out.

I was a left-wing extremist for the first 25 years of my life. I used to believe all of the things you’re currently saying. I even made the same arguments. I’m not scared to step out – I’ve been around the block a time or two. It’s just that your logic is flawed.

I’m going to sleep. Nighty night, and as always…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NoMoreGames]

My wife told me to quit being such a snit and just say what I want to say.

Ok. Here’s the quick-and-dirty.

It really is as easy as tab A is designed for slot B, and not another tab A. This remains the case even if tab A can “fit” into slots X, Y, or Z. Your reproductive system was made for reproducing, just like your digestive system was made for eating. Bulimia is false eating just like masturbation (including same-sex mutual masturbation or contracepted sex) is false sex. They get the pleasure of the act while deliberately frustrating the ends for which the system is designed.

corn was designed for eating, and yet now a days we’re making fuel out of it. Houses? Designed for protection from the elements, now used to show off wealth and multiple other things. Just because something isn’t used as it was initially designed doesn’t mean it is an improper use.

It really is as easy as the ontological (not necessarily immediate) ability to beget a family making a legitimate government interest worthy of tax benefits.

So the ability to do something warrants rewards regardless of it is being preformed? Would you get paid at work if you didn’t do you job? I doubt it.

It really is as easy as the government not having an interest in what two guys do in the bedroom. Love, while nice if it’s there, is not the fundamental basis of marriage – particularly from the government’s standpoint. There’s no legitimate reason to send my tax dollars to it, and being taxed when it’s not necessary is not “small government.”

This makes it seem as the the people exist for the government’s benefit, when it is actually the other way around? Why should the government have an interest in it? Not to get more citizens, but because the people it governs over have an interest in it.

And so you remember, none of these are religiously based arguments. So you know what to do with that canard.

and you call me juvenile? As ignorant as you think I am, I do know the difference between social and religious.

It’s not about equality. It’s not about freedom. It’s not even about tolerance. Tolerance you have, and have in spades. It’s about acceptance, and that is something you’re just never going to get from the Catholic Church. Maybe that’s a bit gruff, but thems the facts.

It’s not about acceptance from the Church. It’s about acceptance in the government, which is not yet present.

If the Church is wrong about this, everything else unravels and it is not the Church at all. Pull the thread of moral authority and infallibility goes out the window, ordinary and papal, not to mention the general teaching authority of the magisterium, the councils, etc., etc. Strip all that away and what’s Catholic about what you have left?

Which is why the church will never change isn’t position on anything even if it is wrong. Its entire basis would fall about and it would loose any social power it once had. Would it change the minds of the believers? Of course not, they wold still believe just the same. So then why be scared to do it? Power on Earth is a tempting thing.

You keep telling me I don’t have the understanding to debate the topic. Just because we take different sides doesn’t mean either one of us is any less understanding of their position now does it? It’s easy to say “I don’t agree with you, therefore you don’t have the abilities one has to have to discuss this,” when what you really mean is “We don’t agree, but I know my position is superior to yours, which makes all of your points invalid”