Gay marriage OK because homosexuals born that way and deserve to have romantic relationships too?

[court14]

Your claim is when we “understand” it we will know it is good and is affirmed by natural law and Divine Law?

Will that also hold true then for other deviant behavior?

That is impossible to answer because there is no agreed upon understanding of either divine of natural law.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Truth for the Faithful and Truth for The Liar:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Jesus himself is not cited as having addressed homosexuality. The only person who discusses same-sex behavior is Paul but he doesn’t make a general sweep. (Eg in Romans 1) Paul is discussing ritual sex in a fertility cult/temple in Rome (letter to the Romans…). From what we understand of Pagan worship there he was discussing a specific temple… The issue is one of idolatry which consisted of some really strange sexual stuff.

Paul talked about sexual immorality. Homosexual behavior falls under that catagory. It had nothing to do with paganism.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

I would strongly suggest that faithful Catholics read the link. It is our faith.

Conclusion.

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

That’s it.

Anything else is deception, lies, or misinformation. The Liar is working overtime and he isn’t particular about where he fights. As we discuss, a frozen little country has given ground and retreated. We must pray for them.

 

[Corki]

I would strongly suggest that faithful Catholics read the link. It is our faith.

Conclusion.

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

That’s it.

Anything else is deception, lies, or misinformation. The Liar is working overtime and he isn’t particular about where he fights. As we discuss, a frozen little country has given ground and retreated. We must pray for them.

Excellent.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

According to to which gospel because one gospel has Christ qualify a reason for divorce and the other it appears he simply states that it is wrong.

One of the Gospels quotes Jesus as saying that divorce is wrong except in the case of lewd behavior. Yet even in the case of lewd behaviour, there can be no remarriage.
Which Gospel says it differently?

However if you know the historical context it takes on a completely different meaning.
Put away vs divorce …they are not the same thing but this way off topic…
Lewd behaviour is still the only reason acceptable for divorce according to the Bible…whether it is going there separate ways or putting away the offending spouse.

I wasn’t aware that the Catholic Church still adhered to this stance. I have a friend who is Catholic who divorced after only 3 months of marriage ( he started physically abusing her after they got married) I asked her what happened with church… She said she had consulted her pere who Counseled her so she would not get into another bad situation if she remarried. Perhaps it depends on the Parrish?
There is the possibility of an annullment, which is where a council in the Church researches whether or not the marriage was sacramental from the very beginning.
In my honest opinion, I believe that annullments are given way too often…to the point that even with there needing to be 6 months spiritual and marriage counseling, the Church can still say that the marriage wasn’t sacramental. I believe that in this quarter, annullments are being granted as a means to appease the masses of Catholics, ya know, to keep the money coming through the collection plates.
It is something that certainly needs to be changed, no matter that the masses are unhappy. God’s laws are perfect. ANd Catholics who are uncomfortable with God’s laws should not be anymore appeased by the Church than society. Accepting immoral behaviour as something that is acceptable is immoral and wrong.
People in the Church are not perfect. Yet the Church certainly is.

I appreciate your position but I am not catholic nor is the United States Government. As I pointed out in an earlier post if we were to allow the majority’s beliefs/faith to rule we would all be southern baptist.
As I stated, when Judao Christian behaviour and rules were thrown out by the government, society did a nose dive. History clearly shows that.

I know I sound hyper critical of the Roman Church but it is the topic at hand. Has the church done nasty stuff in the past? Yes but I think it was an issue of having to much power. I don’t agree with many of the basic doctrines taught in Christianity in general(atonement…original sin) but as far as how the church developed (at least after about 150CE) they are pretty much on target historically. Also, having been raised southern church of Christ and being taught fallacies about Catholicism like “they don’t follow the Bible…” I am the first clarify the fact that the early church did not have most of the new testament hence the new testament is part of church tradition and the validity of Ap. Session.

***You have been taught by people with books written by anti Catholics whose only goal was to change the way history was taught and learned. This is the perfect example of what liberals are trying to do…change the way that history is learned. They teach lies rather than the truth in order for history to be learned as they wish it had been, rather than how it actually was. What the world has been taught about the Inquisition, and about witch burning, etc are perfect examples of this. Protestants during the reformation…not to mention during the time of puritanism…killed Catholics on a huge scale. The Inquisition…which expanded 5 centuries killed and/or tortured very few in comparison. And there were always crimes which had been committed by those who were investigated by the inquisition which brought the offenders to the attention of the inquisitors.
Factual history proves this. ***

 

[RobbyS]

Jesus himself is not cited as having addressed homosexuality. The only person who discusses same-sex behavior is Paul but he doesn’t make a general sweep. (Eg in Romans 1) Paul is discussing ritual sex in a fertility cult/temple in Rome (letter to the Romans…). From what we understand of Pagan worship there he was discussing a specific temple… The issue is one of idolatry which consisted of some really strange sexual stuff.

Even gays make a better argument than they. They recongized that there was a cultural clash between Jews and Greeks, and one part that disgusted all Jews was the open homosexuality practiced in the gynasiums as weell as in the temples. But the plain fact is that Jesus was a Jew speaking for the most part to Jews, and the issue did not arise. It is safe assumption that Christian sexual morality derives from the morality of the Jews, except that Jesus takes a strong stance in favor of the indissolvability of marriage and for virginity. People may object that the Jews do not much practice celibacy but this is the rabbinical tradition, and another party, the Essenes made room for celibacy.

 

[mystagogia]

It was removed because of the studies done by Kinsley which were further supported by the findings of Evelyn Hooker. If you are confused over the term disease google the word. There is a very specific definition and it has nothing to do with how “we” define disease. It is how the experts define it.

The word “disease” was defined a long time before anybody we currently call “experts” at anything were born.

Language gets defined all over the place for many reasons, and usually political words are to blame when ordinary words take on new or redirected meanings.

Disease means a condition that casts one into an unhealthy state. Attempts to redefine disease can easily be an attempt to redefine what is a healthy state. It’s called “dumbing down” to bring in another definition for the sake of clarity.

 

[mystagogia]

And on and on we go… The experts in medical and mental health field concur that it is neither a mental illness nor a depravity. The fact that you don’t accept these conclusions is not at all atypical behavior for humans in general. “How dare you challenge my childhood teachings”
I am no more subject to your subjective understanding of morality than you are of mine.

The fact that I find a ritual of eating someones flesh and drinking said individuals blood as a way to appease an all powerful being repulsive (In fact if only a small group held these belief s society would deem them insane) doesn’t invalidate your freedom to practice said ritual … I recognize your freedom to participate even though it seems unnatural…

I don’t think anyone is asking Rome’s approval. The question at hand is do your personal views on morality dictate who two consenting adults elect to spend their lives with? Legally?Because if we start allowing the majority to determine specific details of said situations the Catholic Church not being the majority in the USA (eg “abnormal”) ain’t gonna make it. I don’t think any of us would like to be forced into joining the Southern Baptist Convention

Same sex marriage will be legalized in the not to distant future. The fact that it is an issue being debated is fairly strong evidence alone… Generation Y is becoming the majority voting block and they are a progressive group of voters(stats wise ). When folks look back they will have the same response we have on the issues concerning women and minorities a century ago; How could anyone think that way…
Get ready

Cheers!

What then do the medical experts classify as a depravity? Name me one depravity?

 

[court14]

History shows that our brand of objective morality is healthy for society, while the liberal brand is destructive to society.
Liberals have and still are doing all that they can to destroy society. They want anarchy…and that will be the death of society. That is what is coming.

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power…” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1,

“And a man will choose…any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman…Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33.
“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)

“…thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
“I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.”
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his , nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor’s house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
Exodus 22 deals with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person’s property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman’s father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father’s property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement*. Exodus 21:22: “…he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor’s wife. “Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.” Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 22:23 Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.
"
… If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate is given to the man’s brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. “…If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family…”

Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.

 

[court14]

History shows that our brand of objective morality is healthy for society, while the liberal brand is destructive to society.

Liberals have and still are doing all that they can to destroy society. They want anarchy…and that will be the death of society. That is what is coming.

cont
Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required to marry her former brother-in-law.
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man’s testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man.
Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to “know” a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine so that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.” The man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.

2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women’s court, considered the least sacred area.
During the Second Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they were to be doubly veiled. “They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves.” 3
These are the ideas you believe should be objective morality validated by either holy scripture and/or the fathers of the church. If you truly embrace judeo/christian teaching from scripture and tradition you must accept that you are the cause of the fall,defective and misbegotten, unworthy to bear witness, made in the image of man rather than God… The fact that you are attempting to instruct me, a male is contrary to the teachings of St. Paul.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. **But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. **

These “liberals” so intent on the demise of society a century ago were fighting for your right to vote, work outside the home and receive equal pay for equal work and these rights were near 6000 yrs overdue.
So I hope you understand why I might not view judeochristian morality as an objective ideal model.

 

[court14]

cont
Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required to marry her former brother-in-law.
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man’s testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man.
Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to “know” a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine so that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.” The man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.

2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women’s court, considered the least sacred area.
During the Second Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they were to be doubly veiled. “They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves.” 3

These are the ideas you believe should be objective morality validated by either holy scripture and/or the fathers of the church. If you truly embrace judeo/christian teaching from scripture and tradition you must accept that you are the cause of the fall,defective and misbegotten, unworthy to bear witness, made in the image of man rather than God… The fact that you are attempting to instruct me, a male is contrary to the teachings of St. Paul.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. **But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. **

These “liberals” so intent on the demise of society a century ago were fighting for your right to vote, work outside the home and receive equal pay for equal work and these rights were near 6000 yrs overdue.
So I hope you understand why I might not view judeochristian morality as an objective ideal model.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

cont

These “liberals” so intent on the demise of society a century ago were fighting for your right to vote, work outside the home and receive equal pay for equal work and these rights were near 6000 yrs overdue.
So I hope you understand why I might not view judeochristian morality as an objective ideal model.

I have heard many ridiculous things, but your last 2 posts beat many of them.

These liberals that I am talking about are the ones in the 60’s who screamed “FREE LOVE”. These liberals that I speak of are the ones who screamed “ABORTION RIGHTS”. These liberals that I speak of are the ones screaming “GOD IS DEAD, so you are not allowed to discuss Him on public property!” These liberals that I speak of are the one’s screaming “IF IT FEELS GOOD, DO IT!, and just ‘get rid’ of the consequences”.

Court, you imply that Christians and Jews hate women, and the only thing important to the men was how they could use the women to prophet themselves. You are ridiculous…and so is your argument.

 

[court14]

What then do the medical experts classify as a depravity? Name me one depravity?

Use of the word depravity is antithetical to the concept of patient care and treatment. It implies a resignation on the part of the care provider in a field (especially in mental health) where new discoveries/explanations are being discovered almost daily.

It would be akin to someone coming in with a high fever and their physican saying “None of the tests show anything so I don’t know… you are just sick…nothing I can do for ya and make sure to pay your copay before you leave.”

 

[court14]

I have heard many ridiculous things, but your last 2 posts beat many of them.

These liberals that I am talking about are the ones in the 60’s who screamed “FREE LOVE”. These liberals that I speak of are the ones who screamed “ABORTION RIGHTS”. These liberals that I speak of are the ones screaming “GOD IS DEAD, so you are not allowed to discuss Him on public property!” These liberals that I speak of are the one’s screaming “IF IT FEELS GOOD, DO IT!, and just ‘get rid’ of the consequences”.

Have I said I think anything in the list above is either moral or immoral? Do you assume since I am infavor of same sex unions that I must be prochoice and an atheist?

Court, you imply that Christians and Jews hate women, and the only thing important to the men was how they could use the women to prophet themselves. You are ridiculous…and so is your argument.

I don’t imply any of these ideas your sacred writings imply these. I am citing *your texts *and you are saying it is my argument. Believe me these are most certainly not My arguments

 

[mystagogia]

Use of the word depravity is antithetical to the concept of patient care and treatment. It implies a resignation on the part of the care provider in a field (especially in mental health) where new discoveries/explanations are being discovered almost daily.

Now I’m citing not your texts, I’m citing you:

And on and on we go… The experts in medical and mental health field concur that it is neither a mental illness nor a depravity. The fact that you don’t accept these conclusions is not at all atypical behavior for humans in general.

You first brought up depravity from a stance of expertism, only to deny that professionals actually entertain the concept:

Use of the word depravity is antithetical to the concept of patient care and treatment. It implies a resignation on the part of the care provider in a field (especially in mental health) where new discoveries/explanations are being discovered almost daily.

This is the heart of the whole debate before this thread. You deny depravity, you deny evil behavior. Such is a clinical problem.

If it is, then what is good behavior?

Are there clinicaly right behaviors and clinicaly wrong behaviors?

Who can say?

Does depravity exist?

If a behavior can be found to exist with what you believe to be a strong pysiological or genetic basis, must we accept it as right and correct? Must we move heaven and earth to accomodate that perception (which is open to revision hundreds of years hence)?

 

[court14]

Now I’m citing not your texts, I’m citing you:

You first brought up depravity from a stance of expertism, only to deny that professionals actually entertain the concept:

This is the heart of the whole debate before this thread. You deny depravity, you deny evil behavior. Such is a clinical problem.

If it is, then what is good behavior?

Are there clinicaly right behaviors and clinicaly wrong behaviors?

Who can say?

Does depravity exist?

If a behavior can be found to exist with what you believe to be a strong pysiological or genetic basis, must we accept it as right and correct? Must we move heaven and earth to accomodate that perception (which is open to revision hundreds of years hence)?

Actually I was quoting but yes we should always be open to the possiblity that what we believe could be wrong. Such is the basis of science and that is one of the main factors that separates science from dogma.
To be continued…
It is 1am and I have school in a few hours. Bon Nuit all!

 

[mystagogia]

Actually I was quoting but yes we should always be open to the possiblity that what we believe could be wrong. Such is the basis of science and that is one of the main factors that separates science from dogma.
To be continued…
It is 1am and I have school in a few hours. Bon Nuit all!

No, no, no, my friend, you play the game poorly. Science, you see, can never be wrong. In the epistemic sense, Science is the sine qua non. You argue the logical positivist viewpoint, and you catastrophically fail if science can be wrong for such undermines the whole epistemology.

Yes, yes, yes, Science is a stochiastic, iterative process leading inexorably toward greater truths. But, don’t you see?, that very statement expects greater truths. You must be prepared to say, “Yes, in science we have happened to got it wrong in a number of ways today, and we won’t have the answers tomorrow or anytime soon. You must trust in the method, and in us priests of it.”

 

[goofyjim]

They may very well be born with a predisposition of attraction to the same gender. I don’t have a problem with that but forcing us to call what they do marriage is a whole different ball game. They are finding today that one can be born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism but that doesn’t give one the right get drunk all the time and become a public nuisance.

 

[SallyMargie]

Hi everyone. A friend of mine has come up with an argument for homosexual marriage that I can’t seem to defeat. He says that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because of the fact that they were born that way and also because they deserve to have romantic relationships too. He says it would be unjust to deprive them of equal rights just because they are attracted to the same sex. How do I counter this?

Do you trust what the world says or what God says? God created all people and loves them, but He wants us to follow His counsels. He doesn’t condemn homosexuals who are living chastely. They simply carry an extra cross.
Think about it this way: Premarital/extramarital sex is also condemned because they, too, are harmful not only to the individuals involved, but to society in general. God made us so obviously He knows us as well!