Gay Marriage

[warpspeedpetey]

.

G-d is really clear in Leviticus and the incidents at sodom and gomorah. i dont understand why this is even a question.

do you demonstrate for the right of people to have sex with or marry animals? how about incest? do you stand up for the right of a brother and sister to marry?

why not? it would seem hypocritical not too.

marriage isnt a right. im sure this has been pointed out. we dont allow bestial, incestuous, polyandrous or polygamous marriages. if you are saying that we should not decide what we will allow or not on a moral basis? if thats the case then there is almost nothing we could outlaw.

 

[JohnCS]

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

Why is it so hard for you to understand? We are all called to chastity! sex for self pleasure is sin. The church can NOT be ok with sin. It is not possible! Do we forget about the whole I build my church on this Rock thing? Peter was the rock, the successor of Peter ie the Pope is now the Rock. The church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The church has the Truth. Just because you and others think it’s out dated does not change that. So instead of the church turning a blind eye to blatant mortal sin, perhaps you and all other near schismatic catholics get in line and help spread the truth instead of enableing the sinner. God bless

 

[edwest2]

To portarica -

The Church isn’t forcing you to do anything. Neither is God. This is the same old the Church has to change rhetoric that ignores the constancy of Church teaching. The Church is not telling you that you cannot live as you want. If you listen, the Church is telling all of us: If you’re single, stay celibate. Marriage is the only acceptable, appropriate and moral situation for sexual activity. All I’ve seen over the last 40 years is a constant, gradual campaign to inject sex into every media outlet there is. It’s wrong. It’s dysfunctional. I’ve turned my back on most of it because it is not good for anyone – TV, magazines, books. It’s gone too far.

There is right and there is wrong. No one is perfect but there must be limits for all. If you disagree with the Church then you need good reasons. God loves all of us just as we are but He doesn’t want us to sin.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Traditional_Ang]

The church never has to marry gays. So what is the problem?

Its just a straw man argument.

The church does enough to make catholic gays feel unworthy, let the marriage issue go and focus on the important stuff like abortion.

Jesus was a lot more concerned with real issues and feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and healing the sick.

Peace

Portarica:

You might want to research some recent cases involving Bishop Fred Henry of the Diocese of Calgery & the magazine Catholic Insight and the Alberta Human Rights Commission (Canada’s Human Rights’ Beef with Catholics) (Religious Tolerance - Same Sex Marriages in Canada) (Bishop Henry calls for overhaul of Human Rights Commissions).

You might also want to consider the issue of Catholic (& Orthodox) Judges and Sea Captains who, under the Law, will now issue Marriage Licenses and have to perform Civil Weddings for Same Sex Couples. I guess you didn’t think about the fact the, according to the Catholic (& Orthodox) Religion aren’t allowed to do either of those things. So, Which would you have them do, Be Faithful to their religion, and quit Office? Be faithfl to their religion and be sanctioned? or, Just simply ignore their religion because they’re Judge and Sea Captains?

You raised up another issue in your post which really needs to be dealt with…

You have a severe misunderstanding about why God became Man and why Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ died on the Cross. If what really mattered to HIM were feeding the Poor and clothing the Naked, HE would have allowed them to make HIM King instead of withdrawing to the mountains after the Feeding of the 5,000 and then giving HIS “Bread of Life Discourse” (John 6 - BibleGateway.com) which caused many of HIS followers TO LEAVE! If what really mattered to Our Lord Jesus were feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, HE would NOT have told Nicodemus that he had to be “Born Again” in order to enter the Kingdom of God, and HE most certainly wouldn’t have told Nicodemus why God sent us HIS only Begotten Son (John 3:1-21 - BibleGateway.com).

And, If Jesus came to die so the hungry could be fed, the homeless housed and the naked clothed, Isaiah the Prophet would not have said in Isaiah 52 & 53:
See, my servant shall prosper,
he shall be raised high and greatly exalted.

Even as many were amazed at him -
so marred was his look beyond that of man,
and his appearance beyond that of mortals -
So shall he startle many nations,

Because of him kings shall stand speechless;
For those who have not been told shall see,
those who have not heard shall ponder it.

Who would believe what we have heard?
To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

He grew up like a sapling before him,
like a shoot from the parched earth;
There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him,
nor appearance that would attract us to him.

He was spurned and avoided by men,
a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity,
One of those from whom men hide their faces,
spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

Yet it was our infirmities that he bore,
our sufferings that he endured,
While we thought of him as stricken,
as one smitten by God and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our offenses,
crushed for our sins,
Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole,
by his stripes we were healed.

We had all gone astray like sheep,
each following his own way;
But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

Though he was harshly treated,
he submitted and opened not his mouth;
Like a lamb led to the slaughter
or a sheep before the shearers,
he was silent and opened not his mouth.
Isaiah 52:13-53:7 NAB
Isaiah 53:8-12 on next post with rest of explanation…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Portartica:

Con. From Previous Post…
Isaiah 53:8-12 NAB:
Oppressed and condemned,
he was taken away,
and who would have thought any more of his destiny?
When he was cut off from the land of the living,
and smitten for the sin of his people,

A grave was assigned him among the wicked
and a burial place with evildoers,
Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.

(But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.)
If he gives his life as an offering for sin,
he shall see his descendants in a long life, and
the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.

Because of his affliction
he shall see the light in fullness of days;
Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many,
and their guilt he shall bear.

Therefore I will give him his portion among the great,
and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty,
Because he surrendered himself to death
and was counted among the wicked;
And he shall take away the sins of many,
and win pardon for their offenses.

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 NAB
(Isaiah 52:13-53:12 - BibleGateway.com)
Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ came to save us from SIN and DEATH. Even His name in Hebrew, Yeshua, Means “The Lord is Salvation” or “God Saves”. If what really mattered to Jesus were feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and housing the homeless, HE NEVER would have allowed sinful men to have done what is described in Psalm 22 (See BibleGateway.com), esp. since he told Peter he could call on 12 Legions of Angels for His defense IF He wanted to (Matt. 26:47-56 - BibleGateway).

I want to make sure you understand this - Jesus at any moment could have fed every single hungry person on this planet. The same for healing every sick person on this planet. The same for clothing every naked and housing every homeless person on this planet. If what Jesus came to do was to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked and house the homeless, why didn’t He skip that painful cross and just simply do those?

I think we both know why - Because that’s NOT what HE came here to do. God didn’t become man & wasn’t born of a virgin, and certainly didn’t suffer crucifixion under a Roman Procurator so the hungry could be fed, the naked clothed and the homeless housed. He became man, was born of a virgin and suffered and died under Pontius Pilatus so those of us who were dead in our sins could be raised to New Life with Him and we are “Poor in Spirit” could have the Gospel that gives Life preached to us. That’s why.

Our Lord told us to feed the poor, house the homeless, cloth the naked, tend the sick and visit those in prison, but He never told us to put doing those things ahead of anyone’s spiritual welfare, and He never said that doing these things was a substitute for obeying His command to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[surritter]

In the February issue of First Things magazine, there is a timely piece about “Christianity Lite” and its recent capitulation to homosexuality. As previous posts have mentioned, once sex is separated from the life-giving quality to which it is ordered by design, any sexual practice is fair game.

Here’s a quote from the former Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie: “Once the [Anglican] Church signalled…that sexual activity was for human delight and a blessing even if it was divorced from any idea of procreation…then what about people who are engaged in same-sex expression and who are incapable of heterosexual expression?”

He is acknowledging that contraception naturally leads to acceptance of homosexuality. Though it may take a number of years to gain acceptance, that conclusion is the obvious result of that logic.

Here’s another quote from the current Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams (but said in 1989 before he was a bishop): “In a church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity…”

IOW, homosexuality is bound to be seen as acceptable once contraception is approved. Maybe everyone here should check out some of the threads that explain why contraception is inherently wrong.

 

[estesbob]

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

The Church is not doing any social engineering-it it adhering to its consistent teachings on homosexual behavior and marriage that it has for over 2,000 years. It is specious to expect the church to abdicate it responsiblity as the guardian of the TRUTH because of the whims of a specific culture in a specific point in time.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

And the statements I’m reading here indicate that pleasure should rule over commitment.

Portarica:

It’s because Pleasure is FLEETING, whereas commitment isn’t. God is a God who makes and keeps Commitments, and Love, first and foremost, is a commitment.

Housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked all require commitment, so does tending the sick and visiting those in prison. These things esp. require commitment when money is short, people are ungrateful (& they are, trust me), clothes don’t fit, contractors don’t keep their commitments, the sick are disabled, have hemorrhagic fever or are dying. and, I haven’t even said a word about what it’s like to teach a class in a prison…

Now, these all come from married men & women I know:

And, I guess you haven’t taken a screaming kid with a 105 fever to the Emergency Room (only to be given a number & told to wait). driven your wife through the SNOW to the hospital so she could give birth, then had her squeeze the life out of your hand. or, (from the wife) You couldn’t have been in labor for 18 hours delivering your first kid only to have him wake you up 3 times a night for the first 6 months (and, guess who’s still peacefully asleep :banghead. The REALLY SMELLY diaper with the, “It’s your turn,” followed by “Rock, Paper, Scissors”. And, You most certainly don’t know about the “Honey-Do” Lists, :hammering: the Levitical Meatloaf, the, “I can’t possibly be overdrawn…” and the Repairs (even professionally done ones) that have to be done over? :doh2:

These are all pleasurable - In a pig’s eye! The reason people go through this and stay with each other is commitment. If pleasure had anything to do with it, we’d ALL head for the hills!:bigyikes:

Here’s a definition of Love - it’s a good as it gets, because it’s based on the Love that is Equivalent to God. Please read it - 1 Corinthians 13. According to 1 Cor. 13, True Love, the kind that is equivalent to God, the kind that causes one to be willing to give up his own life so you can make it to Heaven, is ETERNAL. Can you honestly say that about “Pleasure”? Or About any of the Pale substitutes for LOVE most of us call “love”?

A lot of Catholics, and a lot of Christians seem to have this idea we can serve the world (pleasure) and serve the Lord. We can’t - We’ll either love the one or hate the other. That’s what our Lord said:
Matt. 5:19-24 - BibleGateway
Mark 8:31-36 - BibleGateway
Luke 18:18-30 - BibleGateway

The Church wasn’t created to tell us how to enjoy life - We already know how to do that on our own. God birthed the Church into being on Pentecost so we could make it into Heaven.
And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him. Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.
Romans 12:1-2 TLB
Romans 12:1-2 - BibleGateway
I could keep on quoting Scripture and arguing with you, but that probably won’t do any good. Decades ago, I belonged to a Christian Community in Oregon - We had a Rock band called Servant - Well I spent 3 hours trying to find the lyrics to one of their songs, “Two Masters” (from their World of Sand album). Well, 26 years is a long time to keep lyrics around on the net, but you can find the song… HERE :extrahappy:Just click where it says TWO MASTERS - IT’S FREE! The Digger strikes again! :dancing:

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

then you wouldnt have to be so embarrassed to be Catholic in front of homosexuals.

 

[MoonChild02]

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.

Those who are married cannot receive Holy Orders. Women cannot receive Holy Orders. Is that discrimination? NO.
Those who are priests cannot marry. Is that discrimination? NO.
Those who are ordained laity cannot receive either. Is that discrimination? NO.

Do people claim that these restrictions are discrimination? Yes. However, that is only because they don’t understand the practices within the Catholic Church.

Everyone is called to a different role in life. Some people are called to a life of marriage. Some people are called to a life of chastity. Some women are called to be nuns. Some men are called to a priestly life. Some people are called to be ordained lay men and women.

Those who are gay and lesbian are called to a life of chastity. This is what the Catholic Church has always believed, and WILL always believe. You cannot force the Church to change it’s opinion. By forcing gay marriage on this nation, you are forcing religious groups underground in what is supposed to be a country built on religious freedom.

There are, however, non-religious arguments against gay marriage, but the link below explains those arguments MUCH better than I can. Read it thoroughly, or you won’t grasp the entire situation fully. The first few pages may sound discriminating, but I assure you that is not the case.
marriagereality.org/PDF.7.non-religiousreasons.pdf

 

[corinne333]

i have gay friends at my school (in fact one of them is vice president of the abstince club, and he helped me start it!)

and i struggle with the same issue…i sometimes feel gulity i do not support them getting married

however, frist and foremost, i am a Catholic, so i agree with the church on everything.

(what helps me is the realization that the family is the basis of society, cause it gives birth to and trains indivuals, so gov. must protect the family to protect the future citizens)

and also i think that if you legalised gay marriage, it would encourage homosexual acts, which do not respect their bodies

but i can not evn imagine what life has to be with a person dealing with these issues! (can you? so hard!!!) but the Church does have a support group with people who do have these tempations, it’s called Courage (and they have one for friends or family members to support them in their sturggle called Encourage). (kinda of like AA) however, i suggest you look these groups up. the Chruch does try to help these people.

 

[portarica]

G-d is really clear in Leviticus and the incidents at sodom and gomorah. i dont understand why this is even a question.

do you demonstrate for the right of people to have sex with or marry animals? how about incest? do you stand up for the right of a brother and sister to marry?

why not? it would seem hypocritical not too.

marriage isnt a right. im sure this has been pointed out. we dont allow bestial, incestuous, polyandrous or polygamous marriages. if you are saying that we should not decide what we will allow or not on a moral basis? if thats the case then there is almost nothing we could outlaw.

God was really clear about Shrimp in Lev too.

To say if gays marry we have to let animals marry people uses the same reasoning as if we let men marry women we have to let women marry women and then women marry animals.

If you use causation in an argument, then you are agreeing about similar things happening from the same root causes.

So in essence is that marriage in the first place leads to all kinds of possible wierd combinations.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

God was really clear about Shrimp in Lev too.

To say if gays marry we have to let animals marry people uses the same reasoning as if we let men marry women we have to let women marry women and then women marry animals.

If you use causation in an argument, then you are agreeing about similar things happening from the same root causes.

So in essence is that marriage in the first place leads to all kinds of possible wierd combinations.

Do you really believe that, because it does not make sense GIVEN that the definition of marriage of between a man and a woman. The logic that is being employed is that if we redefine marriage to include same sex, that is where it logically follows that we will be opening up marriage to all kinds of possible weird combination.

Unless, you can give some evidence for why we should allow same sex marriage? Is their any reason to believe that same sex marriage is “the same” as heterosexual marriage? If you could demonstrate this, then that would exclude all the other weird combination.

But if we allow same sex marriage, without good reason, that is when we will be forced to allow all the other stuff.

Also, we do have a good reason for our current definition of marriage, namely that Man and Woman “fit” together, and from this union it is possible for our species to be continued. From this, is logically follows that someone needs to raise the offspring, which naturally this falls on the parents of the children.

Also, if you want to attack my argument, I will already concede that the state of Marriage is in terrible shape, but this only proves that we should be making laws against divorce and fornication, not going the other way and eroding marriage even further.

So, what is your reason for allowing marriage to include same sex couples?

 

[portarica]

To portarica -

The Church isn’t forcing you to do anything. Neither is God. This is the same old the Church has to change rhetoric that ignores the constancy of Church teaching. The Church is not telling you that you cannot live as you want. If you listen, the Church is telling all of us: If you’re single, stay celibate. Marriage is the only acceptable, appropriate and moral situation for sexual activity. All I’ve seen over the last 40 years is a constant, gradual campaign to inject sex into every media outlet there is. It’s wrong. It’s dysfunctional. I’ve turned my back on most of it because it is not good for anyone – TV, magazines, books. It’s gone too far.

There is right and there is wrong. No one is perfect but there must be limits for all. If you disagree with the Church then you need good reasons. God loves all of us just as we are but He doesn’t want us to sin.

Hope this helps,

Ed

Actually Ed , as I said before, I agree with the direction you are moving in.

Knowing gay friends and relatives , I know they didn’t choose their orientation.

If they want to be in a committed relationship or marriage because they believe as you do , except for the homosexuality as sin thing. Wouldn’t it better for all of us if they are afforded that privilege?

The practical effect of the anti Gay marriage movement is to marginalize gays and make them more likely to not want to be part of the body of Christ.

There is so much hypocrisy within the church regarding homosexuality that would be cleared up if Gays were given the opportunity to receive all the sacraments. Marriage being the only one they do not receive on a regular basis in the church now.

Peace

 

[surritter]

Port, I’m waiting for you to come up with a logical refutation of my posts which explained why marriage between two members of the same sex is not possible. Even if they didn’t choose their orientation, there is still no possibility of them to engage in sex** as it was designed**.

Your reply consisted of “Don’t start arguments that presume to be fact based when they are based on theology.”

But I never mentioned theology. I’m talking about biology. I would think we can agree that one of the main purposes of sex is reproduction!

In your post above, you stated that “If they want to be in a committed relationship or marriage because they believe as you do…wouldn’t it better for all of us if they are afforded that privilege?”

But that raises the question of what the privilege is! So I again ask: What is the purpose of having a government recognize something called “marriage”? If it’s just to certify that two people love each other, then the other posters are correct in saying that it could be three people, etc., right?

 

[estesbob]

There is so much hypocrisy within the church regarding homosexuality that would be cleared up if Gays were given the opportunity to receive all the sacraments. Marriage being the only one they do not receive on a regular basis in the church now.

Peace

People who enage in homosexual behavior already have the opportunity to recieve all the Sacraments subject to the same restrictions that apply to all Catholics.

What is the hypocrisy of the Church regarding homosexuality?

 

[portarica]

Port, I’m waiting for you to come up with a logical refutation of my posts which explained why marriage between two members of the same sex is not possible. Even if they didn’t choose their orientation, there is still no possibility of them to engage in sex** as it was designed**.

Your reply consisted of “Don’t start arguments that presume to be fact based when they are based on theology.”

But I never mentioned theology. I’m talking about biology. I would think we can agree that one of the main purposes of sex is reproduction!

In your post above, you stated that “If they want to be in a committed relationship or marriage because they believe as you do…wouldn’t it better for all of us if they are afforded that privilege?”

But that raises the question of what the privilege is! So I again ask: What is the purpose of having a government recognize something called “marriage”? If it’s just to certify that two people love each other, then the other posters are correct in saying that it could be three people, etc., right?

Port, I’m waiting for you to come up with a logical refutation of my posts which explained why marriage between two members of the same sex is not possible. Even if they didn’t choose their orientation, there is still no possibility of them to engage in sex** as it was designed**.

First the most logical refutation of your claim that marriage between two members of the same sex is not possible is that same sex marriages are now codified in various parts of the world. So on the face of it, your claim that it is impossible is false.

If your claim that being capable of “ordered” sex is a pre-requisite for marriage, then that eliminates from consideration of marriage a whole group of one man one women marriages. That would include some of the elderly, the infirm, the maimed and other groups that are now being married within the church.

Do you agree that the church should make exceptions for these people? If so, that makes your the general application of your argument false.

Peace

 

[portarica]

I am assuming that the people on this thread understand that the church has the right to not perform same sex marriages.

My point is that there is no real threat to catholic marriages if gays are allowed to marry.

The arguments that it will lead down the slippery slope are just false. If you think that any reasonable ( making the assumption that the unreasonable behavior of the politicians in DC for the last couple of decades holds at least a sniff of reasonableness) will allow bestiality or any other really deviant behavior to be codified is ridiculous.

Not only would the catholics be up in arms , but the religious right would be in such a tizzy that no politician would dare even utter the words .

Wouldn’t that be ironic, catholics and those that think the pope is the anti-Christ joining forces.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Knowing gay friends and relatives , I know they didn’t choose their orientation.

No one said they choose their orientation consciously. There are a lot of examples of “self-fulfilling prophecies” so to speak, where a child is made fun of in school, called names like gay, queer, and fag, which in turn makes this person believe they are those things. When they feel they can not find love anywhere else, they turn towards people that will accept them. (I am not saying this is the case with all people who have homosexual tendencies). So unconsciously they did choose what they thought was attractive.

If you will accept all this, then clearly making gay marriage legal will allow more people to experiment and choose whom they are attracted to because their will be no stigma attached to it. If you believe that homosexual sex acts are sinful, then you can understand why Christians are against Gay Marriage.

(As another thought about choosing to be gay, think about our prisons. 99% of prisoners that engage in homosexual sex will say they are not gay. When given limited options for love, people will act out in unnatural ways).

If they want to be in a committed relationship or marriage because they believe as you do , except for the homosexuality as sin thing. Wouldn’t it better for all of us if they are afforded that privilege?

Except is a sin.

The practical effect of the anti Gay marriage movement is to marginalize gays and make them more likely to not want to be part of the body of Christ.

If that is the practical effect, it is the one being caused by the LGBT side. They continue to spread lies like anyone against Gay Marriage is discriminating and are bigots. What person wants to go to church with a bunch of bigots?

These are lies. We are not bigots. Every Catholic Church would welcome any person into the Parrish (I can not speak for every Christian Church, but I bet 99% would as well). Would we continue to tell the members of the Church what a sin is? Yes. Might they be offended? Sure. Dealing with sin is difficult, whether it be Adultery, Fornication, Lust, Sodomy, etc.

There is so much hypocrisy within the church regarding homosexuality that would be cleared up if Gays were given the opportunity to receive all the sacraments. Marriage being the only one they do not receive on a regular basis in the church now.
Peace

Where is the hypocrisy?

If my Priest knew that I was having an affair, I am sure he would not give me communion until I stopped and went to confession. Sinners are treated the same, homosexuals are not singled out. If it appears that way, it is only because the LGBT movement is trying to change what marriage is.

Also, their are plenty of people who are denied the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church. If they have been married before (and it was not annulled), or if they did not complete the pre-marriage counseling, etc. I just do not see the hypocrisy.

 

[portarica]

People who enage in homosexual behavior already have the opportunity to recieve all the Sacraments subject to the same restrictions that apply to all Catholics.

What is the hypocrisy of the Church regarding homosexuality?

If you don’t already know the answer to that question, then you don’t want to know the answer to that question.