Gay Marriage: The Death Knell of Christiany

  • Thread starter Thread starter Verdanty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Haven’t followed all the posts as I have come late to this thread.
Actually, I am open to the possibility that the SSA and SSmarriage dilemma might be a blessing in disguise for the Church. And for the definition of marriage vs. the sacrament of matrimony in the Church.
One poster said that no priest has been ever forced to marry two gays in the Church. True. Maybe what might be needed to be said officially is that no priest will marry two persons who do not conform to the RCC definition of a sacramental marriage. ( And since matrimony is ordered to the procreation of children, gays are ineligible for the sacrament.) And the Church does not officially recognize non-sacramental marriages. What might be needed and may or may not come about is a stronger definition of the sacrament of matrimony. Especially vis a vis the question of validity. And a clearer understanding of what is not a sacrament, thus somewhat rectifying the mess the question of nullity currently finds itself in as to “irregular” marriages as Pope Francis has called them.
Right now the Church is in disarray. IN another earlier post it was stated that annulment determined only that a marriage was valid and not necessarily sacramental. Maybe what the church might want to do is strengthen its understanding that marriages are sacramental, not just necessarily valid. That what is recognized is a sacramental marriage, ONLY.
The upshot might be that all are welcome in the Church. “Married” gays are welcome to worship in the church; if they are sexually active, they must refrain from the Eucharist as they live in sin. (No different than a man and woman who cohabit and are sexually active) It is the activity that is sinful, not the environment. If two gays are living chastely in a civilly recognized “married” state, they would be welcome to participate. After all, it has been said many times in various posts that SSA is not, in and of itself, sinful. (Yes the question of scandal is valid, but is it any more scandalous than an engaged couple going to Communion on Sunday - considering no one knows what they were doing on Saturday night?)
I may be whistling past the graveyard, but I believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit have things firmly in control, and this current controversy may be, in a strange and unclear way, a blessing to the church; giving her the ability to interpret the gospel in light of the times in which we live.
 
Sexual excess is a common theme though. Porn use lowers a person’s resistance to passions. Just by the simple numbers, pornography harms society “more than” gay sex, whatever “more than” means.
 
Movies begin to appear that are unsettling. In 1970, TV began to change for the worse and began to include more and more sexual situations, scandalous behavior and eventually added profanity and sex without marriage as normal or average. Prior to 1970, none of that was allowed. The TV was called a welcomed guest in our homes, but no more. Day in and day out, a little bad, a little more and then a little more. Good became bad. Bad became good. The Body of Christ in the West was gradually poisoned.

1972 I watch a nice lady on TV tell us that pregnant women who couldn’t get an abortion were seeking out ‘back-alley’ abortionists, and some died because the procedure was done wrong in some cases. Legal abortion would stop that.

1973 The US Supreme Court, not the people, legalizes abortion. I felt stabbed in the back. Jane Roe was Norma McCorvey. She never got an abortion under this law. And she became actively pro-life.

Also in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removes Homosexuality as a disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, by vote.


“Sexual reassignment surgeries” increase shortly after.

Strangers appear in our neighborhoods with a new gospel. Reject the Church, act like we do, use illegal drugs and have lots of sex. Cohabitation is A-OK. Books about Eastern mysticism begin covering the walls of bookstores. The substitute. These Hippies reject mom and dad, and authority in general. What they didn’t say was “We are the new authority. Follow us.” Peace and sex - “love” - was their mantra. Head Shops sprang up (Head being short for Dope Head) selling underground newspapers and comix, introducing us to act against those who didn’t agree with what the Hippies were preaching. “Eat the Rich” was a center poster in one issue.

1980 Created out of thin air, “No-Fault Divorce” is completing its sweep across the US. I open a Detroit newspaper and see ads like this: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Cal 800-DIVORCE.” It’s nobody’s fault. Pay the man, sign the papers and you’re out. (No, I’m not including cases of abuse.)

So, here we are. After radical feminists like Gloria Steinem support “Women’s Liberation” in the 1970s which created class warfare between men and women. Women were the eternal victims class. Men were the eternal enemies class, including the men running the Church. That’s right. The woman chose who to have sex with like two dogs meeting in an alley or both might live together until one or the other decided to leave. As a Hippie friend told me, “I don’t need no piece uh paper tuh live with my old lady.” Fornication became “performing natural acts.”
 
Last edited:
I worked with LGBT people in the 1970s. We got along. I didn’t think for one second what they did on their own their own time. But later, they decided to abandon their privacy. An out athlete appeared on CNN told everybody watching to “stop being homophobic” more than once. The 80 year old lady hooked up to a tank of oxygen in a wheelchair was homophobic? 5 year Billy is homophobic? Talk about painting with a broad brush.

So, we got here by design. A little reading to establish what I’m saying is true. Amazon.com
 
Last edited:
The time on the calendar means nothing. Only people change things, not time. Cohabitation has been marketed as average, OK and normal by the media for decades. It is still a scandal. Gay marriage is wrong because the goal is a one to one equivalence with heterosexual marriage. It can’t be. Yes, anyone can go to Church. We’re all sinners. We need the Church, But we cannot allow gay marriage to become regularized. Human biology tells us quite clearly that men and women have complementary sex organs and marriage leads to the next generation of human beings. I am not advocating any sort of bullying of gay persons regardless of their relationship as couples.
 
Spade? So I can’t have a belief based on observation? Or your belief, based on what I don’t know, is the correct one and I must follow it.

No, I read news reports and observed a lot of serial killers engaged in homosexual sex. I also took note of particularly gruesome crimes and crime scene involving mutilation particularly of genitals. I also took note of the prevalence of homosexual activity in prison. I thought it interesting since homosexuality is, or was, rare.

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying one can’t form an opinion unless they extensively study a subject and make use of statistical analysis? Because if so most people, and all who lived before statistics, couldn’t have opinions.
 
edwest211 said:
Gay marriage is wrong because the goal is a one to one equivalence with heterosexual marriage. It can’t be.But we cannot allow gay marriage to become regularized.
Click to expand...
Ed. I agree we cannot allow gay marriage to be regularized. I also hold that abortion should not be the law of the land. In reality, abortion is, and gay marriage, at least from the civil sense when advocated on the basis of a civil right, is here, and probably to stay. My post says (and I may not have been as crystal clear as I could have been) is that the church might just elevate the SACRAMENT of matrimony to a new and higher level. That anything that is not sacramental as defined by the church, is not considered by the church as valid. It is our stated religious belief. It is not discriminatory toward others, it is just what we have the right to accept, believe, and practice. That is freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. And people (regardless of sex) who do not meet the RCC criteria are not considered “married” in the church. This would answer the dilemma/question of both SSM and the nature of marriages where marriage itself is not consided a sacrament by out RCC definition, but merely and ordnance.
And everyone would be welcome to worship and and belong to the church. The Eucharist would be available to all who live out an interpersonal relationship in a chaste manner consistent with church doctrine and teaching.
 
I’m not arguing with you on the point of porn being bad, although a number of serial killers have been motivated by things other than porn, including loneliness, anger, power, and even monetary gain.
 
True but it’s an almost unavoidable correlation. Not proof of cause and effect but…
The paddock guy in LV had bizarre sexual habits and gambled excessively. These types of things lower resistance to passions. You are basically practicing the indulgence of your passions without restraint.
We should be horrified at these kinds of things in our culture, but how can we be surprised? This is the bad fruit of moral relativism.
 
niceatheist said:
I guess it depends on what is meant by “information”. If we’re talking about health information (ie. heritable diseases and genetic disorders), then yes, I think there should be some way for a child to find that information out. If you mean the biological parent’s last known address, I’m not sure I want to give anyone an absolute right to lift that veil. There should be some way for a biological parent to “veto” the request, if they truly do not wish to be in contact with their child. That wouldn’t be great for the child, but adoption was always intended as a one-way street, and finding biological parents is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Click to expand...
It goes beyond family medical history. Human beings are programmed with a desire to find out about their family and heritage. It is the inalienable right of a child to have information regarding family ties. Whether or not that right was always realised is irrelevant.

It is wrong to bring a child into this world who, by design, will never know their biological parents. Adoption is there for people who can’t take care of a child. Nobody breeds babies for adoption.

To be honest, I don’t care what gay people (or anyone) do in their own bedrooms, but if you are going to give gay couples the right to have biological children and then say that those children should not be able to find out about their parents, then you are essentially saying that the desires of adult couples are more important than the rights of children.
 
niceatheist said:
You could provide some actual statistics.
Click to expand...
As I said I don’t have statistics. But why do we need statistics for every belief we have? Does that mean no one could have a legitimate belief before statistics was discovered?
 
Because your making a pretty specific accusation about a group of people that, without actual evidence, looks a lot like out and out bigotry
 
Evidence might include something like a peer-reviewed survey or article published in a respected academic journal, preferably more than one such article or example. It could also include testimony of an expert. Or perhaps statistics published by a reliable organization that collects them, preferably on a regular basis.

Your opinion is not evidence. Anecdotal evidence (meaning basically you heard a few stories that X happened and from that you made a general conclusion about a whole group) is not considered reliable evidence.
 
So all my opinions must come from an academic peer reviewed study? So no opinions could exist until the invention of the university and, even later, peer reviewed studies? So I can’t believe grass is green unless a bunch of academics tell me so?
 
You can believe what you wish, it’s a free country.
However, if you make negative generalizations without hard evidence, people will likely accuse you of bias or bigotry.
 
exnihilo said:
What exactly constitutes evidence?
Click to expand...
Don’t play coy here. YOu know exactly what’s required. Either back up your claim with actual studies and statistics showing a causal link, or admit that you simply made it up based on a few anecdotal examples you could think of off the top of your head. You know, do the honest thing, and don’t violate the Eighth Commandment, and bear false witness against your gay brothers.
 
exnihilo said:
So all my opinions must come from an academic peer reviewed study? So no opinions could exist until the invention of the university and, even later, peer reviewed studies? So I can’t believe grass is green unless a bunch of academics tell me so?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you’re going to assert the factuality of your opinions, then the onus is on you to back them up. Otherwise, at best, you’re just simply spreading baseless innuendo, or at worst, you’re out and out lying and trying to cover it up by saying “but it’s just my opinion.”

If you’ve got a problem with homosexuals, then that’s your business, but if you’re going to assert there’s a link between homosexuality and serial killing, then you’re intentionally trying to make an assertion that somehow homosexuality leads to serial killing, and it’s become painfully clear that you have no such evidence, so why is it that you would make that claim?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top