Gay Marriage and the End of Christian Civilization

  • Thread starter Thread starter DawnInTexas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
I couldn’t remember who posted it. If it was you, thank you for clarifying. If incest is decriminalized, then that would be the first step toward allowing incestual marriage.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps the 6th sign of the Apocalypse, right? Only one to go…gay marriage…
 
rlg94086 said:
This is why I won’t have further discussions with you.
Click to expand...
I consider it my moral and intellectual duty to counter your irrational dire predictions. That time I threw in a little sarcastic humor, because I get bored reading the same things. What can I say? We must do what our conscience calls us to do, no?
 
larkin31 said:
I consider it my moral and intellectual duty to counter your irrational dire predictions. That time I threw in a little sarcastic humor, because I get bored reading the same things. What can I say? We must do what our conscience calls us to do, no?
Click to expand...
no, false. the Church says we can only follow our conscience if it is formed by the CC.
 
wisdomseeker said:
no, false. the Church says we can only follow our conscience if it is formed by the CC.
Click to expand...
That’s not very inclusive of the rest of humanity, is it? All those unfortunate non-Catholics who cannot follow their consciences? They must be like spiritually un-informed children, no?
 
I am getting the feeling that many here would really rather base the countrys laws on the opinions or teachings of the Catholic Church. I have read above a few statements that say as much.

Doesn’t the very idea of that bother you, even as a Catholic? I was raised Lutheran, and largely believe most of its ideals to this day. As a Lutheran, the thought of my church hierarchy making decisions on any federal law scares the **** out of me. Not because I would disagree with the law, but because it fundamentally undermines the entire basis of the US, and I am fully aware that long term, it would damage both the country and the spirit of the law far more than it would help.

The entire idea of setting laws to a church is confusing. Maybe it is more a Catholic thing, due to the structure and obedience inherent in the Church? Dunno.
 
larkin31 said:
That’s not very inclusive of the rest of humanity, is it? All those unfortunate non-Catholics who cannot follow their consciences? They must be like spiritually un-informed children, no?
Click to expand...
again, it all goes back to the laws of God through His Church. disobey the Church and you are disobeying God. the others are also required to live by these laws because they are God’s laws. it is up to the individual to choose to follow God or satan. you cannot serve two masters.
 
wisdomseeker said:
again, it all goes back to the laws of God through His Church. disobey the Church and you are disobeying God. the others are also required to live by these laws because they are God’s laws. it is up to the individual to choose to follow God or satan. you cannot serve two masters.
Click to expand...
…but you can follow the Constitution, which is what the laws in this country are based on. It is the bedrock of the United States, and what separates us from all other countries. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights,and its amendments states that all men and women are created equal and have an equal protection under its laws. This is the rock on which this country was built and the gates of hell and sectarianism will not prevail against it.

No one is asking Catholics to enter into same-sex marriages. No one is asking them to support the legalization of same-sex marriages. But there are reasons so many Catholics appear to support these alliances. They do not think that the necessity to procreate is the overarching requirement of marriage. They think that stable alliances are the bedrock of our society and the necessity of raising children. It’s true that some theologians, certainly not all, regard this reasoning as anecdotal and ad hominem, but many Catholics see stable gay alliances; see gays adopting unadoptable children and raising them well; see irresponsible celibate bishops aiding and abetting a heinous felony, pedophilia (that’s what it is in the eyes of the law if you turn a blind eye to crimes and enable the perpetrators–sorry). These crimes performed by Catholic bishops has seriously compromised their moral authority. Catholics, and others, see all these things.

It’s amazing how interested the Catholic church appears to be in marriage, all of a sudden. When I was young, at the dawn of civilization, the RCC was primarily interested in priestly and religious vocations. This was the sure path. Anyone remotely suitable was encouraged. Marriage was mainly to control concupsicience–it is better to marry than to burn–and to provide many little Catholics, preferably tomorrow’s nuns and priests. Historically, marriage between a man and a woman did not exist in many strata of society. The wealthy in Asia had a few wives and many concubines. In Europe a man did have a wife as his property and could do with her virtually and her property which he now owned what he wanted. The concept of raping your wife was unknown. Of course you raped your wife–she had no say in the matter. A man married for the dowry, for a reliable sex slave, and because then he knew her sons were his heirs. Important because his sons, not his daughters, inherited his property. A wife was property, lost control of her own property, and could not divorce until early in the 19th c in England, for example, even then it was very rare, and for unusual circumstances. Women had to marry because they had to be supported; there was little they could do to survive, be a governess or a prostitute; teaching as such didn’t exist because the poor weren’t taught (the wealthy had governesses) and nursing was disreputable until Florence Nightengale.

Marriage was usually not romantic, essential for the woman and man for different reasons, and usually bound up in ownership, property and survival. Read Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice for a very entertaining and accurate views on 19th c. English marriage.

All of a sudden the RCC gets very interested in marriage, the male-and-female variety, after centuries of taking the laity for granted. Why doesn’t the USCCB get more involved with something like—war, for example? Did the USCCB (or whatever the US bishops were called at that time) ever oppose WWII? What about the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo in which hundreds of thousands of people were roasted alive–any comments on this? What about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Anything? The USCCB, to their credit, came out against the Iraq war in Nov, 2002–but has there been anything since? Any followup on a war which has killed thousands of US soldiers, maimed thousands more, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and spent over one trillion dollars—anything?

…but no, the USCCB now ignores the war but must stand up for “traditional” marriage, an institution which didn’t even exist (outside of certain “primitive” societies) until the twentieth century!
 
rossum said:
I agree, the idea is ludicrously overblown. Is Texas better than Massachusets or Vermont? Compare crime rates or divorce rates. Where is the evidence of the detrimental impact of legal Gay Marriage?

Overblown and false claims like this will not do the anti-Gay Marriage side any good.

If anything the legality of heterosexual divorce has done more damage to the sacrament of marriage than legal homosexual marriage has.

rossum
Click to expand...
Hear, hear.

Divorce rates are highest in the South, the Bible Belt. That’s where it was legal for a girl to marry at 13 or 14 until recently. I don’t know what it is now. Anybody know what it is out there in, say, Mississippi? Alabama?

Rig shouldn’t follow O’Reilly’s “arguments” about same-sex marriage. No, you can’t marry an animal. Why? Because an animal can’t give its consent. Yes, there can be same-sex marriage between a 16 year old and a 40 year old, if the 16 year old is a* legal *adult. Unwise but possible, depending on the legal age of consent. Not possible in most states, I believe. Amazing that some states would prohibit same-sex marriage but allow marriage at 16? 14? 15? I don’t know.

In the future, possible a century from now, the anti-same-sex marriage laws will look like the anti-miscegenation laws of old, an embarrassment to the states that had them, and the anti-same-sex laws will be quietly rescinded.
 
rlg94086 said:
EDIT ADD: Of course, this assumes that the psychiatric community maintains its position regarding the harm. There could be expert v expert challenges and changes do occur. According to one poster, some incestual marriage restrictions have already been eased in some states.
Click to expand...
That’s always a possibility with anything.
How is that any different than the civil unions that the Bishops clearly oppose?
Click to expand...
Civil unions under the current system are essentially marriages by another name.
 
larkin31 said:
No. IF you mean me, I wrote that incest (the sex act between consenting related adults, NOT “marriage”) has been decriminalized in many states.
Click to expand...
Where?
My only guess as to why would be that it helps victims to come forward and get help.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Where?
My only guess as to why would be that it helps victims to come forward and get help.
Click to expand...
from Wiki:

*United States

In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[19] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989[19], Ohio only targets parental figures[19], and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[19]

Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[19] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for “sexual penetration” with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[19]

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including step-parents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[20]*

Not so many states as I thought. Interestingly, Massachusetts is noted for having still one of the toughest penalties for incest.
 
I wonder if this is just one of the things Pope John Paul II meant when he said (he was still Karol Cardinal Wojtyla):

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the Anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.”

He also said, while Pope: “Be not afraid!”

Afraid? Of what?

God Bless.
+God Bless our Pope Benedict XVI!
Love, Dawn
 
“I sometimes read the Gospel passage of the end times, and I
attest that, at this time, some signs of this end are emerging”
(Pope Paul VI).

Click Here: EWTN / FLOOD AND FIRE By Regis Scanlon

… and
<homosexuality,> for example, are now accepted and spreading rapidly as
the world becomes cold-hearted and increasingly more violent.
Code: 
 But, even though society may approve of abortion and homosexuality,
God does not!..

…while people today speak about homosexual lovers, St. Paul says that
“no sodomites . . . will inherit God’s kingdom” (I Cor. 6:9-10).
Furthermore, St. Paul says that God punished homosexual activity in the
past because it is “disgraceful,” “shameful,” “perverse,” “depraved,” and
“unseemly” (Rom. I:26-28)…
Code: 
              ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY AS A SIGN
… and
seem to be the key scriptural indicators of a
perverse and corrupt society…

…The
perverted men of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, on the other
hand, practiced homosexuality. They even wanted to have “intimacies” with
the men (angels) that God sent to warn Lot (Gen. 19:5). God destroyed
these people with from the sky (Gen. 18-19).
Code: 
 Now, St. Jude says about the people of "Sodom and Gomorrah" that
“they are set before us to <dissuade us,> as they undergo a punishment of
eternal fire” (Jude 1:7. My emphasis). And, St. Peter says that God
punished the “ancient world” at the time of “Noah” and "Sodom and Gomorrah
. . . (2 Pet. 2:5-9. My emphasis).
So, when widespread murder and homosexuality characterize a society, the
people of that society should expect to be chastised by flood and fire and
“undergo a punishment” which is “eternal,” leaving only a remnant which is
good…

*Great read, the whole Article at the EWTN Website (link above).

Man’s laws are not always the same as God’s Law. When this happens, God’s Law trumps.

Ephesians 6:12
Douay-Rheims Bible
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top