Gay marriage : who cares?

[ERose]

Question to those who know the Bible better than I:

We often hear the quote from the OT (Leviticus?), along the lines of “A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman” (I apologize for the paraphrasing). This is usually the quotation that is cited when one seeks to illustrate that homosexuality is a sin.

I have been told repeatedly that this quotation falls on the very same page as passages that proclaim:

-One may not eat shellfish
-Mixed fabrics may not be worn at one and the same time (e.g. one may not wear cotton on the same day he is wearing wool, leather, etc.)

Certainly it is true that Orthodox Jewish folks follow the “shellfish decree,” if we can call it that, but it is not the case that all those who are quoting this Leviticus passage as proof that homosexuality is a sin, are observing these two “laws” (or edicts).

I don’t suppose it’s all that common, in today’s world, for that “mixed fabrics” clause to be strictly adhered to, whether by Jewish people, or Christians. As far as other laws and edicts in the same section of the OT – I doubt many of them are today upheld except by the most Orthodox of folks.

If the information I have been given is indeed correct, then how can we continuously quote from this passage in Leviticus, knowing full well the passage exists alongside other edicts we for the most part ignore?

And again, it has been pointed out that Jesus did not denounce homosexuality. Given all He did speak out against, and all He did speak in favor of, would we really see Him ignoring this critical topic, if indeed it concerned Him? As our Lord, would He not have had the foresight to know that one day in the future, homosexuality would be debated furiously in circles the world over? Did He not think He ought to weight in on the issue, in case future generations should wish to know His feelings on this topic?

I know I speak outside strict belief in stating this, but I don’t believe in a God who nit-picks tiny little infractions like mixing fabrics. I just don’t. I see having concern for such things as being quite human; it’s hard for me to picture our God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, as concerning Himself with such niggly little points, instead of looking at the total person and what he brings to this earth.

Does one shed more light, or cast more shadows?

My God cares more about that last question than any other, in determining the state of our soul.

I say this with utmost reverence for our God the Father. I simply do not like to see Him relegated to basic, fallible human emotion and thought. I see Him as well above all of this.

I think that the thing that a lot of people get confused on is the purpose of the Commandments. Most people believe that the purpose of the commandments are to force us to toe the line and to insure that we do not anger God. But the Commandments are not made for God’s benefit. They are made for ours. As Jesus said about the Sabbath not being made for God but being made for man holds true for all of the Commandments. The Commandments are meant to elevate us above the animals. We human beings quite honestly start out as animals following the 7 deadly sins.

Six of the sins (lust, gluttony, greed, envy, sloth and anger) come from our animal side. And in fact can be looked at as virtues in the animal world. Lust (pro-creation of the species), Gluttony (eat while you can for you are not sure when the next meal will come), greed (more you got the more food source you have), envy (more you can take from others the less you have to hunt), sloth (energy conservation), and anger (self-defense). Pride is the only one that is a spiritual sin.

Anyway, the commandments are calling us to be better than animals. To be more God-like by controlling our animal side. Think about it. When do we fall from grace? We fall from grace when we let these sins to enslave us. What do you hear from those that have fallen from grace? I couldn’t help myself. She/He was beautiful and willing and I just couldn’t help myself. Those drugs make me feel sooo good, I just couln’t help myself. I wanted that dress soooo bad, I just couldn’t help myself. The list goes on and on.

God is calling us through the commandments and the beatitudes to be better than an animal. To become more God-like. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. What does that mean? To not look at another human being as an object of pleasure, to share our resources, not to take more than we need, not to take something that belongs to someone else, to put in an honest days worth of work, be understanding and compassionate, and to realize that we are not better than anyone else.

That is the purpose of the commandments. Provide us a guideline for being God-like instead of animals. To lift us out of the mud and clean us up and to help us become something better.

 

[edwest2]

To ERose -

Well said. Every good thing in life takes effort. We can’t be good at anything unless we put it into practice, whether it’s tennis or playing the piano. In life, human sexuality is the biggest current problem. Human dignity means treating ourselves and others with respect.

On a forum where I’m a moderator, I read the following: Consent is my favorite word.

And too many people think that as long as the other party agrees, it’s perfectly OK. No one is perfect. That is why God instructed us so we can move in a perfecting direction. It takes effort, and prayer, but we need to do it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[kenofken]

That’s it? Really?

How can I recognize when there is a “union of one woman and one man” rather than just any old couple consisting of “one woman and one man”?

I ask because I suspect that there is more to marriage than just a pair of people of opposite gender and that this conception of “more” has evolved over time as gender roles have changed and means different things to different people.

The confusion you’re experiencing comes from one of the most powerful smoke grenades in the Prop 8 arsenal: do-it-yourself theology. They want you to buy the illusion that marriage is some immutable sacrosanct arrangement that has not been altered or debased in any way over the centuries. In this mirage of theirs, hetero marriage has always been a pure, whitebread Christian arrangment between clean-cut people like you saw in 1950s sitcoms and Norman Rockwell paintings. None of the sordidness of reality, ie the norm of arranged marriages, child brides, marriages done for tribal/political/business alliances, can detract from that pristine reality. Only gay people have the magickal power to debase it.

Even if we lay aside the fact that most marriages throughout history do not reflect a Christian ideal in any sense of the word, there’s an even more glaring hypocrisy. Many millions of the hetero marriages the Prop 8 folks seek to guard from gays are in fact nothing more than state-sanctioned adultery in the eyes of their own church. (all divorced people who remarry without an annulment). Millions more have rendered themselves sterile, often permanently, by choice, thus spitting in the eye of the central reason their church posits for marriage.

So naturally you’d think that Prop 8 folks would be just as eager to outlaw marriage for hetero folks who abuse the institution this way as they are to ban gays from it on theological grounds. You’d be wrong, of course, because it turns out they have two different scales for weighing mortal sin. One absolutist device for gay people and one nice forgiving, morally relativistic one for themselves and other hetero people. This bit of moral and intellectual disconnect is as obvious as a 6’5’’ drag queen in sequins, but they will never acknowledge it, because they have no good answer for it. You will see them trot out a million other reasons about “natural law” and tradition, and how their position is not based in hate, but there’s this mile-wide hole in their central argument.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The confusion you’re experiencing comes from one of the most powerful smoke grenades in the Prop 8 arsenal: do-it-yourself theology.

No, actually: That role belongs to the New Age New Catholics, who have selectively reinvented Christ to suit their preferences and agenda, neglecting His Jewish world view, which most definitely did not accept the practice of homosexuality, let alone the blessing of any sexual union of two people of the same gender. What’s really laughable is when agnostics and atheists come onto CAF and invent Catholic and Christian theology, or attempt to explain it, correct believers in it, and more. (Being such the experts in such things.)

They want you to buy the illusion that marriage is some immutable sacrosanct arrangement that has not been altered or debased in any way over the centuries. In this mirage of theirs, hetero marriage has always been a pure, whitebread Christian arrangment between clean-cut people like you saw in 1950s sitcoms and Norman Rockwell paintings. None of the sordidness of reality, ie the norm of arranged marriages, child brides, marriages done for tribal/political/business alliances, can detract from that pristine reality. Only gay people have the magickal power to debase it.

Even if we lay aside the fact that most marriages throughout history do not reflect a Christian ideal in any sense of the word, there’s an even more glaring hypocrisy. Many millions of the hetero marriages the Prop 8 folks seek to guard from gays are in fact nothing more than state-sanctioned adultery in the eyes of their own church. (all divorced people who remarry without an annulment). Millions more have rendered themselves sterile, often permanently, by choice, thus spitting in the eye of the central reason their church posits for marriage.

Who are the “they” you’re talking about? Talk about stereotyping. Do you have any idea how diverse the pro-Prop 8 crowd is? (No, I thought not.) The superficial 30-second-sound bite media would have everyone believe that only conservative Catholics, Protestant fundamentalists, and Mormons approved of Prop 8. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You have far more mythology about “Prop 8 folks” (whoever those are) and the Catholic Church, and the arguments behind Prop 8 and the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage than most Catholics and other Christians have about gays.

So naturally you’d think that Prop 8 folks would be just as eager to outlaw marriage for hetero folks who abuse the institution this way as they are to ban gays from it on theological grounds. You’d be wrong, of course, because it turns out they have two different scales for weighing mortal sin. One absolutist device for gay people and one nice forgiving, morally relativistic one for themselves and other hetero people. This bit of moral and intellectual disconnect is as obvious as a 6’5’’ drag queen in sequins, but they will never acknowledge it, because they have no good answer for it. You will see them trot out a million other reasons about “natural law” and tradition, and how their position is not based in hate, but there’s this mile-wide hole in their central argument.

Just another example of how you haven’t done your homework. Several of us have discussed often, on CAF alone, how much heterosexual marriage and divorce laws, not to mention marriage preparation and qualification, needs to change. As I’ve said often, the response to the desecration of marriage is not to desecrate it further but to purify & strengthen it.

You sound really bitter, by the way.

 

[kenofken]

No, actually: That role belongs to the New Age New Catholics, who have selectively reinvented Christ to suit their preferences and agenda, neglecting His Jewish world view, which most definitely did not accept the practice of homosexuality, let alone the blessing of any sexual union of two people of the same gender. What’s really laughable is when agnostics and atheists come onto CAF and invent Catholic and Christian theology, or attempt to explain it, correct believers in it, and more. (Being such the experts in such things.)

Who are the “they” you’re talking about? Talk about stereotyping. Do you have any idea how diverse the pro-Prop 8 crowd is? (No, I thought not.) The superficial 30-second-sound bite media would have everyone believe that only conservative Catholics, Protestant fundamentalists, and Mormons approved of Prop 8. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You have far more mythology about “Prop 8 folks” (whoever those are) and the Catholic Church, and the arguments behind Prop 8 and the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage than most Catholics and other Christians have about gays.

Just another example of how you haven’t done your homework. Several of us have discussed often, on CAF alone, how much heterosexual marriage and divorce laws, not to mention marriage preparation and qualification, needs to change. As I’ve said often, the response to the desecration of marriage is not to desecrate it further but to purify & strengthen it.

You sound really bitter, by the way.

Bitter? Not really. I have no dog in the fight directly. I would characterize it more as contempt for hypocrisy which insults my (very modest) intelligence. If and when this movement of yours publicly demands and backs the ban of un-sacramental hetero marriages to a similar degree as you fight gay marriage, I’ll respect it’s integrity. I’ll still fight it like hell, but I would respect the principle you stand on. Not until then.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi kenofken,
May I humbly ask you to please read over your post (#282) again.
Elizabeth502 is right. There is undeniable bitterness there.
Anger and spite cloud a person’s judgement and undoes his/her argument.
If these forums enrage you so much, why do you visit them?
I may as well tell you here and now: you won’t sway anyone with rage.
All the good Catholic folk here are too long in the tooth for your carry-on.
Finally, if you care to, read Psalm 46 and ponder upon line 10:
‘…be still and know that I am God’.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Just another example of how you haven’t done your homework. Several of us have discussed often, on CAF alone, how much heterosexual marriage and divorce laws, not to mention marriage preparation and qualification, needs to change. As I’ve said often, the response to the desecration of marriage is not to desecrate it further but to purify & strengthen it. …

Bravo, very well said.

If we’d all follow God’s laws regarding marriage we’d all be a lot better off.

 

[Leela]

The confusion you’re experiencing comes from one of the most powerful smoke grenades in the Prop 8 arsenal: do-it-yourself theology. They want you to buy the illusion that marriage is some immutable sacrosanct arrangement that has not been altered or debased in any way over the centuries. In this mirage of theirs, hetero marriage has always been a pure, whitebread Christian arrangment between clean-cut people like you saw in 1950s sitcoms and Norman Rockwell paintings. None of the sordidness of reality, ie the norm of arranged marriages, child brides, marriages done for tribal/political/business alliances, can detract from that pristine reality. Only gay people have the magickal power to debase it.

Even if we lay aside the fact that most marriages throughout history do not reflect a Christian ideal in any sense of the word, there’s an even more glaring hypocrisy. Many millions of the hetero marriages the Prop 8 folks seek to guard from gays are in fact nothing more than state-sanctioned adultery in the eyes of their own church. (all divorced people who remarry without an annulment). Millions more have rendered themselves sterile, often permanently, by choice, thus spitting in the eye of the central reason their church posits for marriage.

So naturally you’d think that Prop 8 folks would be just as eager to outlaw marriage for hetero folks who abuse the institution this way as they are to ban gays from it on theological grounds. You’d be wrong, of course, because it turns out they have two different scales for weighing mortal sin. One absolutist device for gay people and one nice forgiving, morally relativistic one for themselves and other hetero people. This bit of moral and intellectual disconnect is as obvious as a 6’5’’ drag queen in sequins, but they will never acknowledge it, because they have no good answer for it. You will see them trot out a million other reasons about “natural law” and tradition, and how their position is not based in hate, but there’s this mile-wide hole in their central argument.

This is very well said, kenofken.

 

[Leela]

Bravo, very well said.

If we’d all follow God’s laws regarding marriage we’d all be a lot better off.

Given that there is a broad doiversity of opinion on the matter, are all Americans obligated to follow your particular understanding of what God’s law says?

 

[Seeker2010]

What kind of love?

Different kinds. Obviously there are various sexual experiences, but that’s just sex. However, I have met a number of people throughout my travels in the lifestyle who are not just close friends, but rather I consider them family.

 

[SwizzleStick]

… Just another example of how you haven’t done your homework. Several of us have discussed often, on CAF alone, how much heterosexual marriage and divorce laws, not to mention marriage preparation and qualification, needs to change. As I’ve said often, the response to the desecration of marriage is not to desecrate it further but to purify & strengthen it. …

Bravo, very well said.

If we’d all follow God’s laws regarding marriage we’d all be a lot better off.?

Given that there is a broad doiversity of opinion on the matter, are all Americans obligated to follow your particular understanding of what God’s law says?

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but I was referring to His laws on marriage, binding a man and a woman for life, only allowing for separation or divorce in some rare circumstances, but not remarriage in those cases. Same-sex marriage is oxymoronic and cannot exist, so that is not what I was referring to at all. I was just agreeing with Elizabeth502 above, though in doing so, I do not wish to derail this thread and make it a discussion about the problems with marriage instead of the topic at hand.

To answer your question, it would be much better for society and families to follow God’s laws on marriage. Now, back to this topic, which is the impossible concept of gay marriage.

To clarify some issues, here’s a short thread (at least for now, it has only 6 posts so far) on civil marriage, which helps illuminate the issue of marriage as seen by the Church.

Civil Marriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=497307

 

[Leela]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but I was referring to His laws on marriage, binding a man and a woman for life, only allowing for separation or divorce in some rare circumstances, but not remarriage in those cases. Same-sex marriage is oxymoronic and cannot exist, so that is not what I was referring to at all. I was just agreeing with Elizabeth502 above, though in doing so, I do not wish to derail this thread and make it a discussion about the problems with marriage instead of the topic at hand.

To answer your question, it would be much better for society and families to follow God’s laws on marriage. Now, back to this topic, which is the impossible concept of gay marriage.

To clarify some issues, here’s a short thread (at least for now, it has only 6 posts so far) on civil marriage, which helps illuminate the issue of marriage as seen by the Church.

Civil Marriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=497307

I don’t think you are derailing the thread at all. I think it is completely relevento to consider marriage as it is actually practiced now and in the past to debunk the arguments against gay marriage of the sort that go “this is how marriage has simply always been.”

There is obviously no way that marriage has always been. There have been polygamous and polyandrous marriages, political marriages, economic marriages, child brides promised by their parents, arranged marriages and other forced marriages. There are marriages pursued because a couple is in love and marriages pursued for lots and lots of other reasons including but not at all limited to having and raising children. The roles of husbands and wives have obviously changed drastically over time. Wives no longer expect to be occasionally beaten by their husbands and they now think that they do not have to submit to their husband any time he wants to have sex. It is now conceivable for a husband to rape his wife, whereas that notion was an impossibility under earlier conceptions of marriage. The concept of marriage has obviously evolved over time just as every social institution has and it will continue to evolve.

The debate should not be about what marriage simply has always been because there is no such thing as what marriage has always been. We should instead sicuss what marriage ought to be and whether any particular view of how marriage ought to be should be imposed upon all Americans.

 

[bingbang]

That role belongs to the New Age New Catholics, who have selectively reinvented Christ to suit their preferences and agenda, neglecting His Jewish world view, which most definitely did not accept the practice of homosexuality, let alone the blessing of any sexual union of two people of the same gender.

You do realize that Jesus did some things contrary to Jewish law at the time, right? If Jesus just followed the Jewish world view at the time, why wouldn’t we all just become Jews?

 

[kenofken]

Given that there is a broad doiversity of opinion on the matter, are all Americans obligated to follow your particular understanding of what God’s law says?

No. Only the gays would be bound by force of civil law to do that.

 

[edwest2]

Given that there is a broad doiversity of opinion on the matter, are all Americans obligated to follow your particular understanding of what God’s law says?

Uh, why do you post here? Do you think the members of this forum can impose an obligation on anyone? This is a Catholic forum, and if you don’t like the answers, I understand, so why do you keep asking as if you hope to get a different answer? The Church is not a social club, it is the Body of Christ, and Catholics are part of that body.

A diversity of opinion has no bearing on Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Leela]

Uh, why do you post here? Do you think the members of this forum can impose an obligation on anyone? This is a Catholic forum, and if you don’t like the answers, I understand, so why do you keep asking as if you hope to get a different answer? The Church is not a social club, it is the Body of Christ, and Catholics are part of that body.

A diversity of opinion has no bearing on Church teaching.

Most people see a big difference between believing that someone ought to behave in a certain way and believing that someone ought to be forced to behave in a certain way at the point of a gun backed by the coercive power of the government. I was hoping I could get you to see the difference too.

 

[edwest2]

Most people see a big difference between believing that someone ought to behave in a certain way and believing that someone ought to be forced to behave in a certain way at the point of a gun backed by the coercive power of the government. I was hoping I could get you to see the difference too.

“point of a gun” Wow. Is this a nightmare you’ve been having? - Just kidding.

Unless you can show evidence of priests and nuns holding people they don’t agree with at bay with AK-47s, I don’t think your argument is much more than a scare tactic.

Like it or not, both sides need to realize we need to live together. That guns don’t solve anything. The coercive power of the government is currently being coerced by gay activists or are we, Catholics, just supposed to ignore that as well?

Who decides what behaviors get prohibited? We The People… And we all get one vote.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ERose]

I don’t think you are derailing the thread at all. I think it is completely relevento to consider marriage as it is actually practiced now and in the past to debunk the arguments against gay marriage of the sort that go “this is how marriage has simply always been.”

There is obviously no way that marriage has always been. There have been polygamous and polyandrous marriages, political marriages, economic marriages, child brides promised by their parents, arranged marriages and other forced marriages. There are marriages pursued because a couple is in love and marriages pursued for lots and lots of other reasons including but not at all limited to having and raising children. The roles of husbands and wives have obviously changed drastically over time. Wives no longer expect to be occasionally beaten by their husbands and they now think that they do not have to submit to their husband any time he wants to have sex. It is now conceivable for a husband to rape his wife, whereas that notion was an impossibility under earlier conceptions of marriage. The concept of marriage has obviously evolved over time just as every social institution has and it will continue to evolve.

The debate should not be about what marriage simply has always been because there is no such thing as what marriage has always been. We should instead sicuss what marriage ought to be and whether any particular view of how marriage ought to be should be imposed upon all Americans.

Wrong on one point. Marriage has always been between man and woman. It may have been one man and more than one woman or one woman and more than one man in some cultures but it has always been between man and woman because only man and woman can procreate.

I have argued this point in previous posts yet I haven’t found anyone of you that have the ability to debate this so you skip it. But the facts are the only reason why marriage even exists is for the purpose of procreation. Granted there are men and women that may be sterile and cannot have children. But if you take the procreation and creating a stable environment to raise children then marriage ceases to be a effective instituation in society.

But you guys dodge this point because truly you have no argument except for “why not?” I would love to see a new one if you have it.

The fact is gay-marriage is an oxy-moron.

 

[ERose]

Most people see a big difference between believing that someone ought to behave in a certain way and believing that someone ought to be forced to behave in a certain way at the point of a gun backed by the coercive power of the government. I was hoping I could get you to see the difference too.

So you are an anarchist? Should all laws be thrown out the window?

I tell you what go back posts 142-144 and prove those posts wrong or are you going to be like so many others that do not want to deal with facts but rather assumptions.

 

[colmcille1]

We should instead sicuss what marriage ought to be and whether any particular view of how marriage ought to be should be imposed upon all Americans.

Hi Leela,
With respect, I think the fact that you see marriage as an imposition says more about your view of marriage than it does about any apparent injustice inherent in it…(which, of course, there isn’t.)
God Bless,
Colmcille.