Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[Julia_Mae]

Indeed. So you are free to make up your own mind but as the Church has the Truth, your personally-arrived-at decisions will always agree with it…

Sorry, I’m going to butt in here a second. This isn’t actually correct, IMO.

There is Truth and there is truth. Now, the Church in the form of declarations of various highly placed persons, like the Pope or a Council or the head of a Congregation, makes a declaration of a stand on a particular issue specific to a time, like same sex civil marriage.

But those declarations are based on a certain interpretation of particular essential Truths. There are other basic essential Truths though. An individual can look at those basic Truths and come to a different decision than the official position.

In the end, if we are informed and capable of understanding, we will be judged on our own choices and decisions and we cannot use “the Church said so” as an excuse if we truly believe that a different decision is more in keeping with God’s Will and Christ’s teaching.

We are responsible for our own salvation.

 

[Patavium]

Sorry, I’m going to butt in here a second. This isn’t actually correct, IMO.

There is Truth and there is truth. Now, the Church in the form of declarations of various highly placed persons, like the Pope or a Council or the head of a Congregation, makes a declaration of a stand on a particular issue specific to a time, like same sex civil marriage.

But those declarations are based on a certain interpretation of particular essential Truths. There are others basic essential Truths though. An individual can look at those basic Truths and come to a different decision than the official position.

In the end, if we are informed and capable of understanding, we will be judged on our own choices and decisions and we cannot use “the Church said so” as an excuse if we truly believe that a different decision is more in keeping with God’s Will and Christ’s teaching.

We are responsible for our own salvation.

I will let the Bible answer you

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:48-70[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry, I’m going to butt in here a second. This isn’t actually correct, IMO.

There is Truth and there is truth. Now, the Church in the form of declarations of various highly placed persons, like the Pope or a Council or the head of a Congregation, makes a declaration of a stand on a particular issue specific to a time, like same sex civil marriage.

But those declarations are based on a certain interpretation of particular essential Truths. There are others basic essential Truths though. An individual can look at those basic Truths and come to a different decision than the official position.

In the end, if we are informed and capable of understanding, we will be judged on our own choices and decisions and we cannot use “the Church said so” as an excuse if we truly believe that a different decision is more in keeping with God’s Will and Christ’s teaching.

We are responsible for our own salvation.

Julia,

You have said this before. You are your own magesterium…

I am Catholic. ALL the answers are inside, as Christ lives in me. Also in you. Some people are satisfied with having someone give them answers. They trust the authority of a church or a book. Some find the answers inside, and then supplement their understanding through Church and Book. Or some combination of processes.

You have stated reasons why anyone including yourself believe things…

Think about the things you do believe. Why do you believe them?

I think we believe things for only a few reasons. **Experience **is one: we believe because we experience it ourselves. **Enculturation **is another: most believe you should wait 30 minutes after you eat to go swimming so you don’t get cramps. “Everybody knows that.” Authority is another way we decide what to believe: the teacher says the sun is 96 million miles away, the test question is marked “wrong” if we don’t write that, so, we believe the sun is 96 million miles away.

You discount the teachings of the Church in favor of the mind of Julia discerning for herself and wrongly I may add…

and true to your words you said this before…

As for myself, I think nothing can be proven or disproven to a mind already made up.

you believe you are correct and will not change…you are wrong…

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia Mae, most women who have abortions, were using some sort of birth control when they conceived their child. Sin simply leads to further disorder in the soul. I see young kids every day who hunger for Righteousness. Gay marriage, birth ‘control’, abortion, euthanasia, are what the modern world has to offer. What the world offers leads to death…

Not the point, apparently you lost the thread of the posts. The assertion was that gay people are all in denial about their guilt and justifying their behavior. My response was: no, they aren’t.

 

[CopticChristian]

9768366]

Not the point, apparently you lost the thread of the posts. **The assertion was that gay people are all in denial about their guilt and justifying their behavior. My response was: no, they aren’t./**QUOTE]

Julia,

Praise the Lord…at long last…why did it take so long…someone, somewhere, now coming forth a light in the desert…

Julia Mae speaks for all gay people…

this is truly a miracle, a miracle…Julia speaks for all gay people…

Is this based on experience, enculteration or some extrinsic authority other than your reason?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Julia,You have said this before. You are your own magesterium…

You discount the teachings of the Church in favor of the mind of Julia discerning for herself and wrongly I may add…

 

[Julia_Mae]

*… less drug addiction, less violence, less social disruption, more stable families, more children adopted.

These are claims unsubstantiated by facts. *

This is my opinion as a decades-long observer of gay folks and American culture informed by an educational background in anthropology. Any assumptions in a different direction, are also unsubstantiated by known facts. In any marginalized group of people, usually separated by race, economics or some other factor that makes them identifiable to society, there is rise in drug addiction and violence leading to or stemming from social disruption. When these groups are integrated into the culture, that behavior is lessened considerably.

As for more children adopted, as I know a few gay families that have adopted children, I am absolutely sure we can say that part is a fact, as until recently, no gay couples were allowed to adopt children. BTW, if you want to keep children out of the hands of gays, then I expect to see Catholics lining up outside adoption agencies to give all these children homes with straight God-fearing people.*

How can this reverse image of a bourgeoisie family possible achieve these results? For at the same time you talk about a normal life, ironically, you make it seem that the “Will and Grace."world was ever anything but a Hollywood fantasy.

*I have no idea what that means. It is a Hollywood fantasy. Or, are you suggesting some gay character on W&G is getting more casual sex and has less interest in long-term commitment than Barney on How I Met Your Mother? (Played, ironically enough, by a gay man.) Are you also suggesting that somehow these two Hollywood fantasies should be considered realistic portraits of all urban people based on sexual preference?

Please explain your point.

 

[Patavium]

This is my opinion as a decades-long observer of gay folks and American culture informed by an educational background in anthropology. Any assumptions in a different direction, are also unsubstantiated by known facts. In any marginalized group of people, usually separated by race, economics or some other factor that makes them identifiable to society, there is rise in drug addiction and violence leading to or stemming from social disruption. When these groups are integrated into the culture, that behavior is lessened considerably.

As for more children adopted, as I know a few gay families that have adopted children, I am absolutely sure we can say that part is a fact, as until recently, no gay couples were allowed to adopt children. BTW, if you want to keep children out of the hands of gays, then I expect to see Catholics lining up outside adoption agencies to give all these children homes with straight God-fearing people.*

*I have no idea what that means. It is a Hollywood fantasy. Or, are you suggesting some gay character on W&G is getting more casual sex and has less interest in long-term commitment than Barney on How I Met Your Mother? (Played, ironically enough, by a gay man.) Are you also suggesting that somehow these two Hollywood fantasies should be considered realistic portraits of all urban people based on sexual preference?

Please explain your point.

Where is your evidence of Gays adopting more children? Isn’t that also a Hollywood fantasy?

 

[PRmerger]

If I have honestly reached a decision on how I should act in certain circumstances, then I am bound by that decision.

Until you decide that you aren’t bound by that decision.

Like with my DD and her “the carpet is lava! You can’t step on it!. Oh, now I can because I need to get my toy” paradigm.

But I have nobody watching over my shoulder to make sure I obey the rules. I have to do that myself.

Well, yeah. And if you don’t obey the rules you suffer the consequences. Just like Catholics. Nothing different here between us.

I’m sure we both break our own set of rules occasionally and we both pay penance in our own way. There’s no difference,

Right.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure why you’re pushing this line of enquiry

Well, because you’ve been quite vague about how you view sex.

Do you want me to say that sex is more than just a simple pleasurable sensation? Seems pretty obvious to me.

Your position was not “pretty obvious” to me at all.

If sex is not merely a simple pleasurable sensation, then what is it?

Is it a bonding activity? (No jokes, please. Bonding).

If so, then why is it only “consenting adults” that’s your paradigm? Wouldn’t you want to add: who are in a relationship? Or who want to know each other intimately because they are interested in each other? Or who have some sort of interest in the good of the other?

OR, is it, as I *thought *your paradigm was: truly, simply a pleasurable activity and “consenting adults” is all that’s required.

Would you mind if your husband’s meal with his good looking co-worker was a romantic style dinner for two with candles and soft music? I think that you may have some reservations. And that’s because there’s an intimacy suggested in that that would be absent in sharing a pizza and a beer at the office watering hole.

Oh, yes, I would mind very much. But that’s just the point. MY paradigm is not that sex is just for pleasure.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is my opinion as a decades-long observer of gay folks and American culture informed by an educational background in anthropology. Any assumptions in a different direction, are also unsubstantiated by known facts. ** In any marginalized group of people, usually separated by race, economics or some other factor that makes them identifiable to society, there is rise in drug addiction and violence leading to or stemming from social disruption. ** When these groups are integrated into the culture, that behavior is lessened considerably.

As for more children adopted, as I know a few gay families that have adopted children, I am absolutely sure we can say that part is a fact, as until recently, no gay couples were allowed to adopt children. BTW, if you want to keep children out of the hands of gays, then I expect to see Catholics lining up outside adoption agencies to give all these children homes with straight God-fearing people.*

*I have no idea what that means. It is a Hollywood fantasy. Or, are you suggesting some gay character on W&G is getting more casual sex and has less interest in long-term commitment than Barney on How I Met Your Mother? (Played, ironically enough, by a gay man.) Are you also suggesting that somehow these two Hollywood fantasies should be considered realistic portraits of all urban people based on sexual preference?

Please explain your point.

Julia Mae,

The history of the Jews is a history of oppression, isolation and not consistent with your paradigm

Homosexuals were not a people in any time. Homosexuals were not oppressed forced to wander and be enslaved as a people. Homosexuals were not put in concentration camps or ghettos in New York. Homosexuals were not and are not a people in the sense of a gathered group that can be identified, they are an amorphous group identified by their behavior.

Jews were isolated, persecuted and I dare say…violence among Jews is not the norm. I would also add that alcoholism and drug addiction is also not the norm. One exception to your paradigm proves you are wrong.

 

[rossum]

Until you decide that you aren’t bound by that decision.

That applies to everyone. Someone who converts from Protestantism with change from being bound by Protestant morality to being bound by Catholic morality.

There are many different sources of morality available, and people can and do change between the available sources.

rossum

 

[markeverett49]

Sorry, I’
There is Truth and there is truth. Now, the Church in the form of declarations of various highly placed persons, like the Pope or a Council or the head of a Congregation, makes a declaration of a stand on a particular issue specific to a time, like same sex civil marriage.

But those declarations are based on a certain interpretation of particular essential Truths. There are other basic essential Truths though. An individual can look at those basic Truths and come to a different decision than the official position. .

Sure. and it will probably be wrong. No one is arguing whether people CAN disagree with the Church. They can and do. But what you want to say is that they can disagree with the Church and be right because the Church is wrong. In prudential matters—such as whether this bishop should be sent to another diocese, or whether that priest should be raised to bishop–the Church does not claim its decisions are above criticism.

I have a different view on this than many here perhaps because I was raised ANTI-Catholic. I stopped going to church when mom stopped making me and spent several years oscillating between non-believer and atheist. I think the Church’s moral teaching during my lifetime—on contraception, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage—is the most solid and REASONABLE moral instruction I know of during that time. I’ve seen people go from arguing that ‘the fetus is not a human being’ to ‘it does not matter whether the fetus is a human being’, and in the case of euthanasia argue that ‘yes, this was once a person but now is but a human being and as such, has no rights, so get over it.’ Proponents of embryonic stem-cell research say it does not matter that embryos are human because, well, we might find a cure for a disease! In every case, the culture has DIMINISHED the value of human life, and those same people are now saying that it is the Church which doesn’t respect the dignity of persons because it opposes same-sex marriage. This is not simply error; it is a lie.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

True.

Now you’re making assumptions. I was raised an Anglican, I did study the bible and I was baptised and confirmed, so I have taken communion. I was the head choir boy at my church. My family’s life was centred on the church. Depending on how old you are, there’s a strong likelihood that I have spent more time in church than you have.

So I didn’t subconsciously pick up Christian Ideas. They were the ideas that permeated my life in church and out of it. So I have made a conscious decision to accept many of them as a guide to how I should live my life. Is that delusion?

Yes, I did assume. Sorry? However, I think this makes the point even more relevant. What are your premises, and do they stand alone?

PREVIOUS: Bradski, philosophy is like “where is Waldo”. You simply need to find Waldo to find the whole in the philosophy. The first principle is “I AM WHO I AM” (1=1)** If you miss this beauty, most likely your entire philosophy hinges on your “first principles” which aren’t first at all.** And for a non-believer they are just as mysterious as God Himself.

The fact is that you grew up in a society heavily influenced by Christian beliefs.
You’re deluding yourself. You are a product of our society.

I talk with atheists and protestants a great deal. ** What i find common in their “Weltanschauung” is their firm belief that they understand the Catholic Faith.** They think they understand what we mean by God, faith, and salvation.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

9768366]

Julia,

Praise the Lord…at long last…why did it take so long…someone, somewhere, now coming forth a light in the desert…

Julia Mae speaks for all gay people…

this is truly a miracle, a miracle…Julia speaks for all gay people…

Is this based on experience, enculteration or some extrinsic authority other than your reason?

Sarcasm I assume?

 

[PRmerger]

That applies to everyone. Someone who converts from Protestantism with change from being bound by Protestant morality to being bound by Catholic morality.

But all Believers are bound by obedience to God.

When one claims that he is bound to no one but himself, that is, essentially, saying he is bound by nothing.

There are many different sources of morality available, and people can and do change between the available sources.

rossum

No, rossum. The only “source” of morality is Goodness Incarnate.

 

[markeverett49]

In any marginalized group of people, usually separated by race, economics or some other factor that makes them identifiable to society, there is rise in drug addiction and violence leading to or stemming from social disruption. When these groups are integrated into the culture, that behavior is lessened considerably. .

You mean like Amish? Or Pentecostals? The Muslims I live near don’t seem like good candidates for detox centers or anger-management courses. As for the homeless, you may have a point, though it could be that their anti-social behavior predates their homelessness. Writers are another group—especially the young and starving variety–who may be over-represented among the substance abusers, but then, they would be under-represented among the violent. Musicians—esp jazz musicians—were once associated with drug use, though the media tended to overplay that stereotype, but they’ve never been widely seen as a violent bunch.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

So who knows where we will be in 100 years. The earth isn’t the center of the Universe anymore, either.

Oh I almost forgot.

The question is not what is whether the universe has a center, the question is **what is at the center of you life? **

Shouldn’t Christ be the center? In this way our desires will be oriented in relation to Christ.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You mean like Amish? Or Pentecostals? The Muslims I live near don’t seem like good candidates for detox centers or anger-management courses. As for the homeless, you may have a point, though it could be that their anti-social behavior predates their homelessness. Writers are another group—especially the young and starving variety–who may be over-represented among the substance abusers, but then, they would be under-represented among the violent. Musicians—esp jazz musicians—were once associated with drug use, though the media tended to overplay that stereotype, but they’ve never been widely seen as a violent bunch.

The Amish are not marginalized, the choose their way of life. I have no idea why you would include Pentacostals. Perhaps you don’t know what I meant by “marginalized?”

Blacks before civil rights were marginalized. And very much still are.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Oh I almost forgot.

The question is not what is whether the universe has a center, the question is **what is at the center of you life? **

You should start a thread about that.