C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Well, one of us is right. To not even state your case is suspect to me.
Peace be with you.
- Status
Peace be with you.
E
estesbob
Guest
My assumption is that marriage should between one adult man and one adult woman who are not closely related . You apparently want to relax these rules but ONLY for those who engage in homosexual behavior. Where is the rationale in that?
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
If the marriage laws are changed to “two consenting adults” the next step with be “two or more consenting adults.” I’m sure the polyamorous people are just waiting their turn.
P
portarica
Guest
Like I said before, I don’t care if two gay people get married.
There are more important issues that more directly contradict what Jesus taught that are not being addressed in a substantive manner that claim more of my concern.
Whether a gay guy and his bud or a couple of lesbians hook up is not of consequence to me or to the vast vast majority of married people .
If the church recognizes it or not is also of little consequence. The church wastes quite a bit of time and money on this that are really of no consequence and of little courage.
Many of the the arguments that are made on this thread start with a conclusion like marriage is only for procreation or sex is only for procreation. Well from a logical standpoint that approach is not a valid form of argument.
If you want to say that you are against gay marriage because the church says it is disordered, then fine.
But don’t say two gays can’t be married, because in some states they can.
Don’t say you can only have sex to have kids, because you can have sex for many other reasons. Say that you won’t have sex except to have kids because you follow the church’s rules.
And as to fighting the change in the world to expand the definition of marriage to include gay people leading polygamy etc. is also wrong reasoning. If the same reasoning was used with the definition of catholic marriage then no marriage should be allowed because if it was allowed between a man and a women, then the next thing you know two guys or girls will want to get married, then 3people of assorted propensities, then we all move to Utah.
Peace
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Would you care to refute that logic?
Those are not the Church rules, I think you need to read the book in my signature.
I don’t follow your logic.
Catholic (and many other religious) definition of marriage: Union of a man and a woman.
How does anything else logically follow from that?
Also, I am still waiting for a reason to allow gay marriage (from anyone really). Even if the reasons you cite that most people give are false, that doesn’t matter if the side for gay marriage can not produce at least a single reason to allow it.
S
surritter
Guest
So if tomorrow NASA says the Earth has two moons, then it does, right?
Each instance of sex does not have to have procreation as its desired end. But what we are saying is that the nature of sex is ORDERED to procreation. If you can’t accept that, then we need to skip the gay “marriage” thread and discuss the objective nature of things based on their design.
G
gamewell45
Guest
…and also with you.
E
estesbob
Guest
So why are you willing to make anexception for those who enage in homosexual behavior but not for thos who engage in incestous or polygamous behavior?
P
portarica
Guest
The womens body is not designed only for sex to be pro creative, in fact the most pleasure comes from forms of sex that are not ordered to procreation.
Don’t start arguments that presume to be fact based when they are based on theology.
The church has the right to make any rules it wants regarding anything it wants, but that doesn’t mean that facts will change to suit the church’s desired outcome.
The church’s positions on sex and marriage are based on morals that it developed, not necessarily scientific facts. Babies don’t spill out of the male as the early church believed.
No longer is the death of the women in childbirth the leading method of birth control.
There have been many factual discoveries that change the way people view their bodies and how they can be used in considerate and loving ways that still reflect God’s love for us, that do not lead to kids.
Eventually the church will come around as it almost did in P6’s time, but it still had a little too much baggage to deal with and to this day in regards to issues of morality that need addressing.
Peace
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
In what other way was the woman’s body designed?
The man and woman’s body were designed to “fit” together, this can not be denied.
As for pleasure, that is a different matter. Surely you can agree that not all pleasurable things are good?
Some of the Church Fathers did misinterpret how our bodies work, but that does not change what God intended for them.
This is your opinion. If you would like to know what the Church really teaches about sex, I again suggest that you read the book in my signature or John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.”
S
surritter
Guest
Portarica, I clearly stated that there are TWO aspects of sex: one is procreative and the other is the expression of love. This is where the “pleasure” part comes in. (If God made the procreative act onerous, how long would the human race have survived?
)Do you deny that sex has ANYTHING to do with procreation?
Do you deny that sex has ANYTHING to do with expression of love?
I presume you answer “no” to these, so I think your logic is that sex might have more aspects than those two. What other purposes might there be? And is it OK to intentionally stifle one aspect in order to take advantage of the other(s)?
P
portarica
Guest
Actually I think you said it was ordered to be pro creative. So you are agreeing that it was ordered for more than procreation?Portarica, I clearly stated that there are TWO aspects of sex: one is procreative and the other is the expression of love. This is where the “pleasure” part comes in. (If God made the procreative act onerous, how long would the human race have survived?
Do you deny that sex has ANYTHING to do with procreation?
Do you deny that sex has ANYTHING to do with expression of love?
I presume you answer “no” to these, so I think your logic is that sex might have more aspects than those two. What other purposes might there be? And is it OK to intentionally stifle one aspect in order to take advantage of the other(s)?
Obviously sex is not needed for procreation. (in vitro)
But God did design the body so it was receptive and desirous of sex even outside a pro creative nature.
And to restrict sex to something that is only for procreation narrows down God’s design of the Body to basic animalistic urges and functions.
I believe that God had a higher purpose for mankind. Maybe I just think God was a little more advanced than the perception of Him by your average 4 century cleric, but I can imagine the enjoyment of sex being a higher usage of the body than watching the Wheel of Fortune.
As for the stifling aspect I don’t understand why that enters the conversation. If you are procreating there better be a expression of love and in fact it might be the highest expression of it.
And while the church has all these new reasonings behind why sex is only to be open to procreation, and how they are beautiful etc. etc. They are really just new reasons to back up the old teachings that were originally arrived at because of faulty knowledge.
The church didn’t zero sum the issue and arrive at doctrines that were based on facts but they put lipstick on the pig and trotted it out like now the church is now so into healthy sex and always had been.
So to bring it back to the Gay marriage issue and why the church should be open to it or at least let it slide as a fighting point. It really comes down to the love aspect of it. And in His wisdom God designed us with differences, there are gays and straights and people who are barren or impotent, people who are maimed or disfigured , people who are of both sexes. But the commonality is that we are all children of God.
And if the most valid expression of our love for Him is to follow His tenant of loving the least like they could be Him then don’t we owe it to Jesus to love our closest neighbor , our spouse like we love Him? And who are we to say that person can’t be the same sex as us or be someone who has attributes of both sexes?
Why would we deny anybody the fullness of marriage if marriage is really the expression of love that we make it out to be?
Perhaps instead of preventing people who love each other from getting married we should be working on bringing more love into our own marriages.
Peace
E
estesbob
Guest
You want to-you have stated that marriage should be limited to two unrelated people. What about the three sisters who are deeply in love-why would you deny them marriage?
The Church’s teaching on marriage and homosexuality has been the same for 2,000 years. Its not going to change because some think our generation is more enlightened than all that went before us.
E
edwest2
Guest
In 1968, the Pope had Humanae Vitae published. The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception would be temptations and obstacles to the stable Catholic family.
The Sexual Revolution was about sex, not love. And the statements I’m reading here indicate that pleasure should rule over commitment. So the Hippies, a small group, were sent out to yell and scream. Free Love! Sex with anyone. Off the pigs! Kill the police. “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” Fornication became “natural acts.”
1969 Hollywood releases Bob, Carol Ted and Alice and introduces viewers to wife swapping. And what did I hear from my non-Catholic peers? “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!” No. We were dating and getting married and having kids.
1970s Adult Bookstores selling images of prostitutes appear everywhere. Topless go-go bars.
1973 I watched on TV, spokesmen for those who wanted to legalize abortion. “Please, please have compassion on poor young women who will die in back-alley abortions. Please!”
1978 The National Organization for Women turns men into eternal enemies, and women into eternal victims. Men are called “male chauvenist pigs.” Gloria Steinem publishes Ms Magazine, the origin of that word.
1980s Porn on cable. TV gets more and more dysfunctional. No-Fault Divorce. No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.
1990s Shock jocks spewing filth, Rap spewing filth and violence. Mall parking lots fill up as Church parking lots empty. You can’t tell a religious person from a non-religious person. Profanity and Partial Nudity on ABC. This was always the goal – to get some kind of porn on network TV.
The internet and into the abyss.
It was about sex then and it’s about sex now. This attempt at social engineering is not and will not be ignored. The stability of the family is at stake.
Peace,
Ed
The Sexual Revolution was about sex, not love. And the statements I’m reading here indicate that pleasure should rule over commitment. So the Hippies, a small group, were sent out to yell and scream. Free Love! Sex with anyone. Off the pigs! Kill the police. “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” Fornication became “natural acts.”
1969 Hollywood releases Bob, Carol Ted and Alice and introduces viewers to wife swapping. And what did I hear from my non-Catholic peers? “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!” No. We were dating and getting married and having kids.
1970s Adult Bookstores selling images of prostitutes appear everywhere. Topless go-go bars.
1973 I watched on TV, spokesmen for those who wanted to legalize abortion. “Please, please have compassion on poor young women who will die in back-alley abortions. Please!”
1978 The National Organization for Women turns men into eternal enemies, and women into eternal victims. Men are called “male chauvenist pigs.” Gloria Steinem publishes Ms Magazine, the origin of that word.
1980s Porn on cable. TV gets more and more dysfunctional. No-Fault Divorce. No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.
1990s Shock jocks spewing filth, Rap spewing filth and violence. Mall parking lots fill up as Church parking lots empty. You can’t tell a religious person from a non-religious person. Profanity and Partial Nudity on ABC. This was always the goal – to get some kind of porn on network TV.
The internet and into the abyss.
It was about sex then and it’s about sex now. This attempt at social engineering is not and will not be ignored. The stability of the family is at stake.
Peace,
Ed
P
portarica
Guest
Why do you keep trying to defend your position with another straw man the 3 people argument? Does changing the subject make a valid argument? (oh wait I get it you have been talking to my wife, she always uses that one on me.)
The position on sex and marriage has not been the same for 2000 years. The bible was not codified until centuries after Christ and Jesus didn’t speak so much to Marriage as to adultery.
Paul had very negative views on marriage and the necessity of the whole thing. Considered marriage as sort of an afterthought if you couldn’t live as good as he did. (wonder where all the thoughts about worrying about other people came from?)
The church was OK with arranged marriages, so much for the love argument being forever in the province of the church.
The popes had mistresses , were married and on and on.
So where does that put us?
Perhaps in a time where a more enlightened approach to the whole thing can take place.
Is it so difficult to put Jesus’ teachings in a modern perspective? Not really. They are timeless. Not just because they endure, but because they remain unconditionally valid despite the passage of time.
That can’t be said for all the writings of some such as Paul that can only be clearly seen through the same perspective that he was preaching to thousands of years ago.
Take any teaching of Jesus , you don’t have to get an explanation regarding his audience or which group of people He was trying to impress. So I say let’s give His teachings the prime spot, after all He was of and Is the father? Right.
So lets treat the gays as if they were Jesus in the guise of the Least. Now tell Jesus He can’t share in the fullness of all His sacraments. That is the only one we withhold from gays.
Peace
E
estesbob
Guest
Its not a straw man at all-you claim we should not deny people who are in love the opportunity to marry but thnm impose restrictions on who you think should be allowed to marry
We are not a Sola Scriptura Church. The Church has ALWAYS condemend homosexual behavior and sex outside of marriage-long beofre the Canon of Scripture was set.
And that justifes homosexual marriage becuase…?
You are the one claiming that being in love is the only requiremnt for being married. Can you point us to the teachings of the Church that endorsed arranged marriages?
The pope are infallible in matters of Faith and Morals-they are not impecable. the unchaging teachings of the Church dont change becausea Pope sinned.
Back to the fact that the church has been the consisistent guardian of the TRUTH for over 2,000 years
And how do we define “enlightened”. Are you endorsing, for instance, moral relatavism?
There are no need to put them in a "modern: perspective. The TRUTH does not change over time.
Again the Churchs teachings in sexualtiy are not based primarily on Pauls writings
ALL the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Jesus. You can not seperate him from his Church
People who enage in homosexual behavior can shae in the fullness of all of the Sacarments. Like all of us, though, they have to repent and confess when they have greviously sinned to do so.
P
portarica
Guest
The church attempts to do social engineering without doing the homework or buildingb the foundation.
It worked in the middle ages because the people worked in the fields all day went to church repeated it, died at 25 and the whole thing started again.
Now it isn’t sufficient to just say thinking about sex is wrong it needs a concerted effort to show how beautiful sex can be in marriage and how important it is to love and respect your lover.
But instead the church seems to be most ready to jump in when the horse is out of the barn or the good little catholic girl is already pregnant.
You blame the 60’s like the 50’s were any better, people were shaking up and getting married because they had to a similar rates in the 50’s. The 50’s in the US had higher rates of teenage pregnancy that the 60’s.
As far as the male dominated stuff the rate of teenage pregnancies increases with age disparity and the violence involved in Sex. So instead of the anti femist stuff we should have a church that works to build respect for women among men.
The interesting thing is that when you bring up your conclusions and research is done into the background of your holdings, I find myself agreeing with you about some of where we are heading, but I believe the solution isn’t in the church trying to prevent things, but in the church trying to foster some thing of a revolution in how we treat one another.
Perhaps the church being OK with Gay marriage would show the world that love can overcome .
It would also address some of the ironies of the whole situation,
Peace
P
portarica
Guest
And the statements I’m reading here indicate that pleasure should rule over commitment.
Actually I can’t see any post where that is said.
Would you please point it out?
Peace
Actually I can’t see any post where that is said.
Would you please point it out?
Peace
E
edwest2
Guest
What did Jesus say to the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery? Did her encourage to go and do it again? He did not condemn her but told her to sin no more.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Yes it has been, as far as it needed to be. The Church has always held that sex and marriage are to be between a male and a female. Does the Church now have a deeper understanding of what this union means? Yes. The Church has never claimed to know everything all at once, but we do know that God will teach us as we go. (As an example, had God told Moses His entire plan, about becoming man and dying on a cross, this would have caused great confusion, and would have led to the belief that there were 2 or 3 Gods. God teaches us what we can handle at the time)
Not sure where you get this from. Simply his quote about not marrying if able. This is not a negative view of marriage but a realistic view of how important marriage is, namely a priest of God can not serve 2 masters. God’s work demands a lot of time, and so does being a husband.
You are blinded by the lust of the world. Love is not something that happens to us, but is a choice. This misguided view of love is why we have so many divorces now.
News to me. Do you have any sources to back up this claim?
Actually all scripture needs to be viewed from the perspective of that time.
“Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt 16: 17-19
Bar-Jona is Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke)= “Bar” means Son and “Jona” means dove. Jesus was saying that Simon had a revelation of the Holy Spirit.
Notice the name change, from Simon to Peter. This is significant as there was another person who’s name was changed by God. Abram (means Father) to Abraham (Father of nations). Jesus changes Simon name to Peter (which means Rock).
Knowing this, we see that Jesus reference to “on this rock” is about Peter, which means Jesus is building His Church upon Peter. (We call him the first Pope).
Keys of the Kingdom: Isaiah 22 is being referenced here. The kings steward possessed a literal key which was worn, and this steward was in charge and had considerable power. The Jewish people knew this.
I have only scratched the surface of this passage, but clearly all this is not self-evident from reading that passage. We only have the full understanding when we have the perspective of the time.
We should treat everyone as brothers and sisters in Christ. But this does not mean we should make it easier for them to sin. If you understood the sacrament of marriage, you would realize that it is not the Church that is withholding this sacrament. It is impossible for same-sex people to be married, just as it is impossible for a guy to have a baby, or a woman to be a priest.
- Status