Gay Marriage in America

[Groundhog_Day]

It has a huge following. However, even it it’s not what you consider relevant, to some the truth will always be relevant. So it will always have a following.

It will take some time. It seems like the tide has turned against CC truth, which may not be actual truth. There is no way to prove that a religion is “true”. One simply accepts it for emotional reasons. The CC has grown more politically savvy over the centuries, in terms of where it will assert itself. It is challenged today with being too moribund to adapt quickly enough. It is not alone in that task, which is challenging every large institution. This CC is an institution above any other function.

 

[Incomplete]

It will take some time. It seems like the tide has turned against CC truth, which may not he actual truth. There is no way to prove that a religion is “true”. One simply accepts it for emotional reasons. The CC has grown more politically savvy over the centuries, in terms of where it will assert itself. It is challenged today with being to moribund to adapt quickly enough. It is not alone in that task, which is challenging every large institution. This CC is an institution above any other function.

Start another thread if you want to discuss this.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The claim that some sins that cry out for vengeance while others don’t is just plain silly.

The original Five, which are rooted in Hebrew scripture, were:

(1) Homicide: Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10]

(2) The sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]

(3) The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]

(4) The cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and

(5) Injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4]

Catholic Culture has an excellent discussion of this, focusing on the four which have not expired, which would be all except #(3).::

**Together and In Order **

All of these sins cry out to God, but the four are not equal. The sequence in the text suggests a hierarchy of value, and it is a tightly linked hierarchy. One sin leads to another, from the gravest to the least, as we make objects out of persons and treat them accordingly, subverting all our natural relationships. For this reason, we cannot assuage our consciences by attending to the fourth sin while ignoring the first, or by claiming virtue on the third and closing our eyes to the second. If these sins cry out to God for vengeance and we still commit them or do nothing to restrict them in others, we mock God to His face. Of course, when we’re wearing our usual cultural blinders, it often appears to us that we can mock God with impunity. But isn’t this something else we know from Revelation—in case we cannot see it for ourselves?

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

The themes of exploitation, manipulation, oppression, objectifying of persons, injustice, unlawful gain, and the corruption of God’s creation are all persistent biblical themes addressed by Jesus as well, in continuity with the Mosaic framework. They all threaten the pillars of society and thus are the ultimate in social sin.

 

[Groundhog_Day]

The original Five, which are rooted in Hebrew scripture, were:

(1) Homicide: Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10]

(2) The sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]

(3) The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]

(4) The cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and

(5) Injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4]

Catholic Culture has an excellent discussion of this, focusing on the four which have not expired, which would be all except #(3).::

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

The themes of exploitation, manipulation, oppression, objectifying of persons, injustice, unlawful gain, and the corruption of God’s creation are all persistent biblical themes addressed by Jesus as well, in continuity with the Mosaic framework. They all threaten the pillars of society and thus are the ultimate in social sin.

Do you embrace the “mosaic framework”… being unclean when you cycle, stoning folks to death, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists… or do you delicately pick your moral precepts and rationalize them, according to your personal preference or some other equally valid rationalization?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you embrace the “mosaic framework”… being unclean when you cycle, stoning folks to death, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists… or do you delicately pick your moral precepts and rationalize them, according to your personal preference or some other equally valid rationalization?

I follow the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, (because Jesus did), as opposed to outdated dietary disciplines & inaccurate intepretations of Mosaic law which Jesus corrected during his public ministry. And actually none of those are in the same category as the Sins Crying Out to Vengeance for Justice

Your comment, therefore, is off-topic.

 

[Groundhog_Day]

I follow the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, (because Jesus did), as opposed to outdated dietary disciplines & inaccurate intepretations of Mosaic law which Jesus corrected during his public ministry. And actually none of those are in the same category as the Sins Crying Out to Vengeance for Justice

Your comment, therefore, is off-topic.

Oh… really. You follow the precepts of mosaic law. Interesting. I commend you. Are you able to connect emotionally with people? Just curious. The question might be too personal, but it interests me how an anachronistic person survives or rationalizes modern culture and science.

As for off topic… gay marriage is a tired one here. There is not much to discuss. The CC opposes the concept. Civil rights advocates support it. Both see it as a moral issue. Neither side is reconcilable. End of discussion.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Oh… really. You follow the precepts of mosaic law. Interesting. I commend you. Are you able to connect emotionally with people? Just curious. The question might be too personal, but it interests me how an anachronistic person survives or rationalizes modern culture and science.

As for off topic… gay marriage is a tired one here. There is not much to discuss. The CC opposes the concept. Civil rights advocates support it. Both see it as a moral issue. Neither side is reconcilable. End of discussion.

Look. The topic of THIS THREAD is “GAY MARRIAGE IN AMERICA” and is further defined by the OP which discusses a specific subset of GAY MARRIAGE IN AMERICA.

If you think it’s “tired” then please start your own thread instead of being rude to the OP and posters (and lurkers) here with your constant attempts to derail this thread.

Thank you.

 

[Groundhog_Day]

Look. The topic of THIS THREAD is “GAY MARRIAGE IN AMERICA” and is further defined by the OP which discusses a specific subset of GAY MARRIAGE IN AMERICA.

If you think it’s “tired” then please start your own thread instead of being rude to the OP and posters (and lurkers) here with your constant attempts to derail this thread.

Thank you.

OK. Gladly. Now say something new about the topic of Gay Marriage in America. Need I remind you that you asked for a translation of the Catholic Catechism from Latin, which is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The position of the Catholic Church is a religious one, and has no bearing on civil law. This forum is Catholic, but irrelevant to the topic. The CC will never be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, by the same constitutional authority which makes its opinion irrelevant to the potential legality of gay marriage, which is entirely a civil rights issue, and not a religious one.

 

[Nate13]

OK. Gladly. Now say something new about the topic of Gay Marriage in America. Need I remind you that you asked for a translation of the Catholic Catechism from Latin, which is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The position of the Catholic Church is a religious one, and has no bearing on civil law. This forum is Catholic, but irrelevant to the topic. The CC will never be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, by the same constitutional authority which makes its opinion irrelevant to the potential legality of gay marriage, which is entirely a civil rights issue, and not a religious one.

Can you tell me with certainty that a person saying gay marriage or homosexual actions are sins or are morally wrong possibly ever be considered hate speech? It would seem many proponents from the gay rights movement would like to see just that. To them saying gay sexual relations are morally wrong is the equivalent of telling an African American that having black skin is morally wrong.

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK. Gladly. Now say something new about the topic of Gay Marriage in America. Need I remind you that you asked for a translation of the Catholic Catechism from Latin, which is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The position of the Catholic Church is a religious one, and has no bearing on civil law. This forum is Catholic, but irrelevant to the topic. The CC will never be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, by the same constitutional authority which makes its opinion irrelevant to the potential legality of gay marriage, which is entirely a civil rights issue, and not a religious one.

The potential legality of gay marriage is definitely a religious one. I am a Catholic 24/7. I do not put on a “Catholic” uniform when I go through those church doors and take it off when I leave. I live as a Catholic and I vote as a Catholic. I follow the guidelines the Church offers when I vote.

In my life and in the lives of millions of people the Catholic faith is an integral part of my/their very being. I am a soul with a human body, created by God in His likeness. Obeying Him is my only concern.

Therefore I accept any and all official Church teaching re homosexuality, homosexual activity, and gay marriage specifically and I use those teachings to help me decide how to vote.

The fact that this forum is Catholic is relevant to this topic and to this thread.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Can you tell me with certainty that a person saying gay marriage or homosexual actions are sins or are morally wrong possibly ever be considered hate speech? It would seem many proponents from the gay rights movement would like to see just that. To them saying gay sexual relations are morally wrong is the equivalent of telling an African American that having black skin is morally wrong.

THat guy from Westboro Baptist seems to be doing just that.

 

[StAnastasia]

Just trying to be logical and address your posts as exactly as I can…

Thanks!

 

[Santi2]

They are a family unit.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;8409767:

It’s a pretend

family unit.

No, it’s a real family unit. At my sons’ parish school there are quite a few couples who were not able to have children of their own, and who adopted children them from China, Mexico, Colombia, Africa. One of our friends lost her husband to cancer when her daughter was born – they are a family of mother and daughter. There is another family consisting of a father and his adopted daughter. Adopted children are just as real as biological children, and all are part of real families.

 

[tm30]

The Church does not teach that all Muslims go to hell, or even that all Caholics that convert to Islam go to hell, and the Church certainly does not teach that children that follow the faith of their adoptive parents go to hell.

Never said that all Muslims go to hell. Catholics who voluntarily convert to Islam are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Whose baptismal graces they are rejecting. That’s spiritual suicide, so I don’t know how one who was Catholic and dies with heretical beliefs can receive supernatural life.

Obviously a child would not be held to the same culpability as an adult. The greatest culpability would be on the parent that entrusted them to people of that faith, unless it was explicitly agreed that in such circumstance the child would remain Catholic.

 

[StAnastasia]

Catholics who voluntarily convert to Islam are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Whose baptismal graces they are rejecting. That’s spiritual suicide, so I don’t know how one who was Catholic and dies with heretical beliefs can receive supernatural life.

This claim is merely superstition, as is the Muslim claim that a Muslim who converts to Christianity is going to end up in Islamic hell. Both claims reflect a primitive, superstitious take on reality, and I agree with people like Richard Dawkins who consign this sort of silly theology to the dustbin. (Unfortunately Dawkins can’t see a greater reality beyond this.)

If God is infinitely wise, I’m sure She can recognize that the created order is confusing to those creatures who over millions of years have evolved into rational self-awareness and spiritual consciousness. I imagine God hopes the best for all his creatures, and gives them the benefit of the doubt as they search for God with sincerity of heart. Actually we make a prayer for this intention on Good Friday.

StAnastasia

 

[tm30]

This claim is merely superstition, as is the Muslim claim that a Muslim who converts to Christianity is going to end up in Islamic hell. Both claims reflect a primitive, superstitious take on reality, and I agree with people like Richard Dawkins who consign this sort of silly theology to the dustbin. (Unfortunately Dawkins can’t see a greater reality beyond this.)

If God is infinitely wise, I’m sure She can recognize that the created order is confusing to those creatures who over millions of years have evolved into rational self-awareness and spiritual consciousness. I imagine God hopes the best for all his creatures, and gives them the benefit of the doubt as they search for God with sincerity of heart. Actually we make a prayer for this intention on Good Friday.

StAnastasia

Wow, you’re really on an error-riddled roll here. What school of theology did you get your PhD in?

 

[TMC]

Never said that all Muslims go to hell. Catholics who voluntarily convert to Islam are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Whose baptismal graces they are rejecting. That’s spiritual suicide, so I don’t know how one who was Catholic and dies with heretical beliefs can receive supernatural life.

Obviously a child would not be held to the same culpability as an adult. The greatest culpability would be on the parent that entrusted them to people of that faith, unless it was explicitly agreed that in such circumstance the child would remain Catholic.

You may not know how those that leave the faith can be saved, but I have faith that God does. The Church does not teach that such people are damned.

 

[sedonaman]

… "Affirmed in the recent [New York] vote is the disturbing reality that the Catholic hierarchy has lost most of its credibility with the wider culture on matters of sexuality and personal morality, just as it has lost its authority within the Catholic community on the same issues. There are reasons – and they have little to do with secularism, relativism or lingering influences of the wild 1960s – why people are no longer listening to the bishops.
…

Do we vote on truth? Are the bishops to approve of illicit voh-dee-oh-dohing to regain their credibility with you and the rest? Jesus commissioned his first apostles to “go into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching what I have taught you.” He did not commission them to “go into the world, find out what the current liberal ideas are and bring them back and incorporate them into my church.” What you and NCR are asking for is the Gospel in reverse.

 

[StAnastasia]

Wow, you’re really on an error-riddled roll here. What school of theology did you get your PhD in?