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

[onmyknees]

I read through about 3 pages of this thread and was reminded of why I left the Church a few years ago. court14, thanks for being a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant thread. To the rest of you, I speak as an outsider. If you want the Church to have something to say to those outside of it, you cannot continue to cloak prejudice and fear in doctrinal formulations.

Hi thewalrus,
It offends me when you make untrue statements about us who are faithful Catholics. We are not prejudice or fearful! My son has ssa and is living with his partner. The Catholic Church teaches that we are to love everyone but hate the sin. Since I came back to my faith I have had less fear and more love than ever before. Jesus is not a sadistic God! He is just and all merciful. He is love. He wants so much for us to follow his teachings so we can be with Him for eternity. He taught that we must pick up our cross and follow him. Yes, He made some people with ssa and he made others single all their lives too. They are also called to be chaste. He allows all kinds of suffering to happen so that we will grow in love and holiness because He only wants us to be with Him in heaven.

 

[thewalrus]

Hi thewalrus,
It offends me when you make untrue statements about us who are faithful Catholics. We are not prejudice or fearful! My son has ssa and is living with his partner. The Catholic Church teaches that we are to love everyone but hate the sin. Since I came back to my faith I have had less fear and more love than ever before. Jesus is not a sadistic God! He is just and all merciful. He is love. He wants so much for us to follow his teachings so we can be with Him for eternity. He taught that we must pick up our cross and follow him. Yes, He made some people with ssa and he made others single all their lives too. They are also called to be chaste. He allows all kinds of suffering to happen so that we will grow in love and holiness because He only wants us to be with Him in heaven.

I am not intending to offend you or anyone else. I am simply defending people that I love deeply against beliefs such as yours that serve them violence (and I mean rhetorical violence here). I know you mean well, I really do, but your beliefs mask violence in the name of love, which is one of the most dangerous things possible. God does not call homosexuals to be chaste at all. God calls them to be fulfilled human beings that enjoy the gift of God’s creation.

 

[thewalrus]

Just follow back to other post and threads where I have posted on this subject in the past… Like what has been noted, this thread has been going on since 2005 so read it…

To make it easy for you here is a place to start

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Well, I just went through all 36 pages for you and found nothing. Do you really expect me to go through all the other threads to hunt for your statistics? I’ll give you props for the link here. Only problem is that a practicing internist who publishes an article on a conservative Catholic website about the “health risks of gay sex” is not exactly considered legitimate. Find me something from this decade in a scholarly journal and we’ll talk further. Otherwise, your burden of proof goes sorely unmet.

 

[peduzzi89]

So i haven’t read every response to this thread…but it seems pretty off the point…ok, I’ll buy that the church condemns it…great…why are we arguing about the cause of homosexuality and whether or not it’s bad??? That’s not even the point. The point is legal marriage, here…upon which religious points of view don’t have bearing. No one’s pushing for the catholic church to hold gay marriages…so where are the reasons that gays shouldn’t be able to marry in the eyes of the state? Anyone?

 

[pathia]

Pathia, I am a priest. I jumped into this thread with a theoretical argument that I now realize does little to help the gay people who are doing most of the posting, each having a real need for being on the forum and in this thread. I am sorry if anything I wrote offended you. There is so much more that I could say that I am sorry that what I chose perhaps did that…

I apologize for what some priest(s) did to you. Jesus apologizes to you as well (for the other’s sin), when He went to the cross, and that means much, much more…

If I had the chance I know I could find a way to help you find peace, and I would not try to change you. That would be your choice if you even ever wanted that. I simply know that I truly can help you find peace. But you have to want it… above everything else.

Yours in His love for you,
Fr. Mike

You did not offend me…I just want to thank you…that is the first time I have heard those words from a priest, in that manner. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. I am too poor with words to express how much this means to me.

 

[RobbyS]

So i haven’t read every response to this thread…but it seems pretty off the point…ok, I’ll buy that the church condemns it…great…why are we arguing about the cause of homosexuality and whether or not it’s bad??? That’s not even the point. The point is legal marriage, here…upon which religious points of view don’t have bearing. No one’s pushing for the catholic church to hold gay marriages…so where are the reasons that gays shouldn’t be able to marry in the eyes of the state? Anyone?

Well, religious points of view do have a bearing, because the whole body of English marriage law arose in a Christian society and is based on Judeo-Christian morality. It incorporates elements of the civil law and of ancient Germanic law,and canon law as well none of which have place for homosexual couples, as we understand them. Gays are relying on a positivist view of law, which allows all sorts of inventions, including some which fly in the face of fact.

 

[jean8]

Well, religious points of view do have a bearing, because the whole body of English marriage law arose in a Christian society and is based on Judeo-Christian morality. It incorporates elements of the civil law and of ancient Germanic law,and canon law as well none of which have place for homosexual couples, as we understand them. Gays are relying on a positivist view of law, which allows all sorts of inventions, including some which fly in the face of fact.

When churches support gay marriages, that is when I will leave the church. why? Because the Bible clearly reads this is a sin that God hates. You may spin this perversion anyway you wish, the bottom line is, Repent!

jean8

 

[Mulepadre]

…No one’s pushing for the catholic church to hold gay marriages…so where are the reasons that gays shouldn’t be able to marry in the eyes of the state? Anyone?

I’ll grant to lleave the Church out of it for the sake of argument (though you really cannot for I would argue that one can only fully separate the Church from the State by holding to no belief in God and His creation.) Thus we acknowledge the State as having her own authority to establish and regulate juridical entities, such as marriage, which she ought to and does.

So homosexual marriage would then be held to be a ‘juridical’ or legal entity with its own rights, norms and privileges in society. That is fine to a certain point for we do need to distinguish carefully between such possible legal entities. Let me start with just a few (the list could be endless and all signs seem to show that it will be) such as marriage between a single man and a single woman as verses marriage between a man and several women or between two women, or between a woman and a dog (don’t laugh) or between a man and a boy, etc… Thus we seem to have a possible chaos only revealing the failure of the state to adequately protect and insure the temporal life and happiness of her constituents (and I mean here particularly children who are either the natural product of such unions or the ‘artificial’ product of gay marriage.)

Fr. Mike

 

[thewalrus]

Well, religious points of view do have a bearing, because the whole body of English marriage law arose in a Christian society and is based on Judeo-Christian morality. It incorporates elements of the civil law and of ancient Germanic law,and canon law as well none of which have place for homosexual couples, as we understand them. Gays are relying on a positivist view of law, which allows all sorts of inventions, including some which fly in the face of fact.

Robby, the whole “rule of law” position is outdated and ineffective. It is much more persuasive if you argue the merits of the law. There is absolutely no good reason not to allow homosexuals to marry in our society.

 

[thewalrus]

I’ll grant to lleave the Church out of it for the sake of argument (though you really cannot for I would argue that one can only fully separate the Church from the State by holding to no belief in God and His creation.) Thus we acknowledge the State as having her own authority to establish and regulate juridical entities, such as marriage, which she ought to and does.

So homosexual marriage would then be held to be a ‘juridical’ or legal entity with its own rights, norms and privileges in society. That is fine to a certain point for we do need to distinguish carefully between such possible legal entities. Let me start with just a few (the list could be endless and all signs seem to show that it will be) such as marriage between a single man and a single woman as verses marriage between a man and several women or between two women, or between a woman and a dog (don’t laugh) or between a man and a boy, etc… Thus we seem to have a possible chaos only revealing the failure of the state to adequately protect and insure the temporal life and happiness of her constituents (and I mean here particularly children who are either the natural product of such unions or the ‘artificial’ product of gay marriage.)

Fr. Mike

So right after apologizing, you make an analogy between two gay partners and a woman and a dog? Wow. There is no comparison. The “slippery slope” argument, just like the “rule of law” one, is ineffective.

 

[Mulepadre]

So right after apologizing, you make an analogy between two gay partners and a woman and a dog? Wow. There is no comparison. The “slippery slope” argument, just like the “rule of law” one, is ineffective.

No analogy intended Walrus. Your jumping the gun. That comes from you. Rather simply listing some possible scenarios.

Note that I made no real moral qualification between them, only trying to establish the basis for such an argument.

 

[onmyknees]

I am not intending to offend you or anyone else. I am simply defending people that I love deeply against beliefs such as yours that serve them violence (and I mean rhetorical violence here). I know you mean well, I really do, but your beliefs mask violence in the name of love, which is one of the most dangerous things possible. God does not call homosexuals to be chaste at all. God calls them to be fulfilled human beings that enjoy the gift of God’s creation.

How can you say that I serve them violence in the name of love? I am so close with my son and his partner! We do lots of things together. I love them so much! You are right, God calls them to be fulfilled human beings. We can only be truly fulfilled with the peace and love that comes from following Jesus Christ. Why do you think that God, who said pick up your cross and follow me, doesn’t allow suffering? Many of us are chaste due to illness, or single life. Why is this different from ssa? I know of a male, ssa couple who came back to the Church and are now both chaste. I also have a male friend who is ssa and a faithful Catholic and he is at peace. We don’t know why people are ssa but I tend to agree with the priest on this thread because my son was very close to me and afraid of his dad while he was growing up.

 

[Bennie_P]

Well, I just went through all 36 pages for you and found nothing. Do you really expect me to go through all the other threads to hunt for your statistics? I’ll give you props for the link here. Only problem is that a practicing internist who publishes an article on a conservative Catholic website about the “health risks of gay sex” is not exactly considered legitimate. Find me something from this decade in a scholarly journal and we’ll talk further. Otherwise, your burden of proof goes sorely unmet.

Follow the noted documentation, and see if the writer’s research and conclusions are legit and follow logic. Otherwise the burden of proof is upon you for the writer used noted documentation that came from “gay” sources as well as other sources, such as the CDC, which anyone should consider legit.

What you are lookng for is someone that will endorse illogical conclusions that come from those that agree with your view point.

If you want to use material only from this last decade then it is time for you stop using the word homosexual for those that have struggle with same-sex attraction, that word was coined by a 19th century homosexualist trying to come up with a scientifc sounding word to justify his immoral lifstyle.

Oh, the answer to the first question, Yes

 

[thewalrus]

No analogy intended Walrus. Your jumping the gun. That comes from you. Rather simply listing some possible scenarios.

Note that I made no real moral qualification between them, only trying to establish the basis for such an argument.

If you were not making a general comparison between them, then yes I did jump the gun. I was reading you as saying that if homosexual marriage was allowed that the concept of marriage could unravel and include those other scenarios. Please explain further.

 

[thewalrus]

How can you say that I serve them violence in the name of love? I am so close with my son and his partner! We do lots of things together. I love them so much! You are right, God calls them to be fulfilled human beings. We can only be truly fulfilled with the peace and love that comes from following Jesus Christ. Why do you think that God, who said pick up your cross and follow me, doesn’t allow suffering? Many of us are chaste due to illness, or single life. Why is this different from ssa? I know of a male, ssa couple who came back to the Church and are now both chaste. I also have a male friend who is ssa and a faithful Catholic and he is at peace. We don’t know why people are ssa but I tend to agree with the priest on this thread because my son was very close to me and afraid of his dad while he was growing up.

Actually, I said that your beliefs serve them violence, not you. I think that is outstanding that you love them and spend time with them. I am only saying that the belief of mandatory chastity does violence to their bodies. It keeps them from living a wholistic life in Christ in their own way. It would be absurd if I thought God didn’t “allow suffering.” Clearly, God does. But homosexuality need not be a “cross” bestowed by God upon people. Chastity that is chosen is different than chastity that is mandatory.

 

[Mulepadre]

Walrus,

You are being very reasonable.

But this thread is all mixed up. Let us start a new thread about just this. okay?

Look for it tomorrow as I got to get some needed sleep…
And nice posting with you.

Fr. Mike

 

[peduzzi89]

jean8…did you even read what I wrote? You completely missed the point, obviously.

mulepadre, So why does the whole slippery slope have to begin with gay marriage? People said the same thing when interracial marriage came into play. The thing is, those other types of marriages don’t have to do with equal rights…gay men and women are pushing to marry regardless of sexual orientation…polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

 

[thewalrus]

Follow the noted documentation, and see if the writer’s research and conclusions are legit and follow logic. Otherwise the burden of proof is upon you for the writer used noted documentation that came from “gay” sources as well as other sources, such as the CDC, which anyone should consider legit.

What you are lookng for is someone that will endorse illogical conclusions that come from those that agree with your view point.

If you want to use material only from this last decade then it is time for you stop using the word homosexual for those that have struggle with same-sex attraction, that word was coined by a 19th century homosexualist trying to come up with a scientifc sounding word to justify his immoral lifstyle.

Oh, the answer to the first question, Yes

Heh, well glad you answered the question but I’m not going through them. It is clear to me you do not have the research. The only data from the CDC that I found concerned Hep A statistics, which again, is preventable. Here’s what I got from your article. There is a 30 year old study that found gays to be more promiscuous. My response? First, it’s outdated. Second, upon further research, the sample on that study was severely flawed. He also goes into the ill effects of certain sexual behavior more common among homosexuals. First, these are also found among heterosexuals. Second, good hygiene and care can prevent much of what he speaks. He also goes into the poor mental health of homosexuals. Well gee, I wonder why there is more depression among homosexuals? lol And guess what he bases his “reckless sexual behavior” section on? Mental depression. It’s crack-pot science. Find me a legitimate article and we can talk further. Until then, I’ll rest safe with the rest of the scientific community.

 

[thewalrus]

Walrus,

You are being very reasonable.

But this thread is all mixed up. Let us start a new thread about just this. okay?

Look for it tomorrow as I got to get some needed sleep…
And nice posting with you.

Fr. Mike

Fair enough. See you then.

 

[RobbyS]

Robby, the whole “rule of law” position is outdated and ineffective. It is much more persuasive if you argue the merits of the law. There is absolutely no good reason not to allow homosexuals to marry in our society.

You first, Exactly what is the merit of granting extensive legal rights to a couple whose main interest is a romantic relationship? What do we gave permanetly from “gay marriage?” Furthermore the “our society” you are talking about is, really, the society of the Boomer generation, which is the United States has dominated largely because of its size and by dint of this has been able to infect the law wth shibboleths, such as the right of privacy.