Gay Marriage

[surritter]

Actually calling it ABC doesn’t change it in the eyes of the church. All contraception is prohibited.

Wrong. The word contraception means to “avoid conception.” That is not always wrong. The problem is the MEANS used to avoid conceiving a child – to abstain from sex for the purpose of avoiding conception is not always wrong. Read Humanae Vitae for the Church’s actual teaching on this.

 

[surritter]

Lets separate out the sex thing first since it doesn’t occupy much time. What do married people do with most of their time?
Give birth to kids.

Care for kids?

Save on taxes?
Cuddle while watching TV.

Love God.

Go to church as couple.

etc. etc.

Lets list some things that you can do if you aren’t married.

Give birth to kids.

care for kids.

Be a priest.

Love God.

Go to church as couple.

Do you see any similarities?

Peace

Thanks for answering the challenge. I see lots of similarities in the two lists. If there is hardly any difference, then what is the purpose of marriage?

That’s my point! The way you see marriage, I don’t blame you for having no issue with homosexual “marriage.” I’m trying to get you to see that it is more than those things; it is an institution developed around a bond or promise or covenant in order to pave the way for a stable family.

Can a homosexual couple be the point of origin for a stable family? No, because it is impossible for them to have children. So that’s why marriage does have a lot to do with the biological ordering of procreation.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Its the only way to sin without sinning.

Its the free pass to sex without saying you don’t want to be pregnant. Its like buying a life insurance policy.

Its a construct to get around an inconvenience.

Peace

I have been trying to think of an analogy to better explain why NFP is different from contraception. (The best way to understand is to read Good News About Sex & Marriage)

Let’s say I need a heart transplant and someone happens to die (old age or car accident) and so I get my heart.

But what if I need a heart transplant, so I go out and shoot someone for their heart.

Clearly their is a difference between these two. Sure, in the end, I got my heart, but the means were different. I am sure you will agree that their is nothing wrong with what happened in the first case, but clearly their is something wrong with what happened in the second case.

This is like NFP and contraception. While both achieve the same end, their is a difference between the two.

But it is much more than this simple example. This issue has two parts, the means and the ends. My example only covered the means.

But I suppose what confuses me, is that you are Catholic. So even if you do not believe in NFP and you think contraception is okay, why would you want to lead other Catholics to believe the same? Do you really think the Church is wrong on this issue? It really is a slippery slope once you start questioning the Church. I have found that since I submitting my will fully to Christ, I have no choice but to also submit to the Church. Jesus founded His Church for these very reasons, namely that things change and someone needs to guide the people. Might the Church be wrong? Sure. But I would rather err on the side of not sinning, then tell people it is okay to do something that could be a sin. But that is just me.

 

[portarica]

But recall that we are talking about the design of the person. Not disorders from that design. This is no slam on people that suffer from hermaphroditic conditions since they haven’t chosen it, but it must be recognized that that is not a condition in accord with the design of the human body, right?

You are saying that God’s design must meet a standard of perfection arrived at by man?

“it must be recognized that that is not a condition in accord with the design of the human body, right?” That sounds like an excuse used by an abortionist , not a description of one of God’s children.

Peace

 

[portarica]

I have been trying to think of an analogy to better explain why NFP is different from contraception. (The best way to understand is to read Good News About Sex & Marriage)

Let’s say I need a heart transplant and someone happens to die (old age or car accident) and so I get my heart.

But what if I need a heart transplant, so I go out and shoot someone for their heart.

Clearly their is a difference between these two. Sure, in the end, I got my heart, but the means were different. I am sure you will agree that their is nothing wrong with what happened in the first case, but clearly their is something wrong with what happened in the second case.

This is like NFP and contraception. While both achieve the same end, their is a difference between the two.

But it is much more than this simple example. This issue has two parts, the means and the ends. My example only covered the means.

But I suppose what confuses me, is that you are Catholic. So even if you do not believe in NFP and you think contraception is okay, why would you want to lead other Catholics to believe the same? Do you really think the Church is wrong on this issue? It really is a slippery slope once you start questioning the Church. I have found that since I submitting my will fully to Christ, I have no choice but to also submit to the Church. Jesus founded His Church for these very reasons, namely that things change and someone needs to guide the people. Might the Church be wrong? Sure. But I would rather err on the side of not sinning, then tell people it is okay to do something that could be a sin. But that is just me.

I now can understand now how you think. You assume I am in favor of contraception because I call NFP contraceptive. There is no causal relation to the two subjects.

I just think if you don’t want kids now, pretending to want kids so you meet the requirements of some earthly construct doesn’t make sense.

I can’t submit to the church on that one because it makes no sense.

I don’t have to submit myself to the will of the church because I can’t even fully submit myself to the discipline required to come close to meeting Jesus’ teachings regarding treating the least like they may be he.

When I get that down I’ll then change my focus to submitting to the church.

As to your heart attack scenario you use two examples that are not close to the NFP scenario. NFP is basically a lie. You don’t go through the effort of tracking fertility and then having sex on the most infertile days if you want a kid.

Didn’t you hear the one about the mustard seed? If you want the seed to flourish you plant it inn the fertile soil, not the barren wasteland.

I’m just for telling the truth. NFP is like the part of Jewish law that allows a person to tell someone else to be a proxy for a lie. It works like this: the orthodox Jewish person has a gentile secretary. The exec says to the secretary when the phone rings; “tell him I’m not in”.

Technically the law is served. The exec doesn’t lie. But the deceit happened just as well.

Same with NFP. Its a bogus explanation, but meets the requirements of canon law.

Peace

 

[portarica]

Thanks for answering the challenge. I see lots of similarities in the two lists. If there is hardly any difference, then what is the purpose of marriage?

That’s my point! The way you see marriage, I don’t blame you for having no issue with homosexual “marriage.” I’m trying to get you to see that it is more than those things; it is an institution developed around a bond or promise or covenant in order to pave the way for a stable family.

Can a homosexual couple be the point of origin for a stable family? No, because it is impossible for them to have children. So that’s why marriage does have a lot to do with the biological ordering of procreation.

Actually you just made the best point for gay marriage. It can create stable families. Because gay couples can put unwanted kids into a more stable family environment than the might be in now, (orphanages, foster homes, the streets, pedi units at hospitals etc. )

And since not being able to have kids on their own doesn’t deny heterosexual couples from marriage, it is no different.

Thanks, you have just come up with the most reasonable as well as compassionate reason for allowing gay marriage.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

I now can understand now how you think. You assume I am in favor of contraception because I call NFP contraceptive. There is no causal relation to the two subjects.

I apologize if I assumed anything. I am merely confused because you call yourself a Catholic yet you sound like my Protestant friends.

I just think if you don’t want kids now, pretending to want kids so you meet the requirements of some earthly construct doesn’t make sense.

It is not pretending. If that is how you view it, or how you judge other people who use NFP, then that is your choice.

I can’t submit to the church on that one because it makes no sense.

I have you really tried to understand? Have you read Good News About Sex & Marriage?

I don’t have to submit myself to the will of the church because I can’t even fully submit myself to the discipline required to come close to meeting Jesus’ teachings regarding treating the least like they may be he.

You do if you want to be Catholic. I do not think anyone can come close to meeting the teachings of Jesus, but we are not called to perfection. We are God’s children, all He asks is that we try.

When I get that down I’ll then change my focus to submitting to the church.

Jesus is in the Church and the Church is in Jesus. Not meant to sound “deep” but if you submit to Jesus, then you are submitting to the Church He founded, which means you should submit to all the Church teaches because Jesus gave us His Church.

As to your heart attack scenario you use two examples that are not close to the NFP scenario. NFP is basically a lie. You don’t go through the effort of tracking fertility and then having sex on the most infertile days if you want a kid.

You really need to read the entire book, but I will give you an except.

"Suppose there were a religious person, a nonreligious person, and an anti-religious person walking past a church. What might each do?

Let’s say the religious person goes inside and prays, the nonreligious person walks by and does nothing, and the anti-religious person goes inside the church and desecrates it. (I’m framing an analogy, of course, but these are reasonable behaviors to expect.) Which of these three persons did something that is always, under every circumstance, wrong? The last, of course.

Husbands and wives are called to be procreative. If they have a good reason to avoid pregnancy, they are free to be non-procreative. But it’s a contradiction of the deepest essence of the sacrament to be anti-procreative.

The analogy is even more profound than you might think. As exemplified in the Virgin Mary, woman’s womb has truly become the temple of God. If the husband enters this “church,” he must pray for God’s will to be done. He may have a good reason not to enter the “church.” But it would be a grievous sacrilege to enter the church and desecrate it by sterilizing her womb." Good News About Sex & Marriage by Christopher West page 114

 

[chessmane4e5]

"Here’s another good analogy. Most engaged couples come to realize in planning their weddings that there are people they know whom, with good reason, they can’t invite to the wedding. The proper thing to do is simply not to send them an invitation. Can you imagine sending them a “dis-invitation”? “We are getting married on June 21, but we do not want you to be there. Please do not come.” That would be an obvious breach of the relationship.

This is what married couples are doing to God when they contracept. By engaging in intercourse, thy are sending God an invitation to join them in bringing about his most creative act, but when God opens the invitation, it says in bold letters, “Do Not Come. We Don’t Want You Here.” On the other hand, couples who abstain from intercourse to avoid pregnancy are simply not sending an invitation to God. If the couple has good reason to avoid pregnancy, God can understand that. There’s no breach of relationship." Good News About Sex & Marriage by Christopher West page 114-115

To me the difference between contraception and NFP is like the difference between night and day. Does any of that not make sense? Again, reading the entire book makes these statements even more profound. The first chapter describes God’s creation, the second chapter deals with Church authority. It is a very easy book to read, as it is laid our in Question and Answer format.

 

[surritter]

Actually you just made the best point for gay marriage. It can create stable families.

Umm — exactly HOW does a gay couple create a family? If you think about what you’ve written, you must come to the conclusion that families and marriage are dependent on heterosexual sex.

I keep asking you to use logic and you keep coming back with feelings.

 

[surritter]

You are saying that God’s design must meet a standard of perfection arrived at by man?

“it must be recognized that that is not a condition in accord with the design of the human body, right?” That sounds like an excuse used by an abortionist , not a description of one of God’s children.

Peace

No-- I am not saying that “God’s design must meet a standard of perfection arrived at by man.” I am saying that God designed humans, and yet there are sometimes aberrations from that design.
For instance, God created humans to be perfectly happy in the garden of Eden. Guess what? Adam and Eve messed it up. That was a deviation from God’s design. It doesn’t change the design.

So too with homosexuality or hermaphroditism. Those conditions are deviations from the design intended by God. Now I’m not saying that those conditions are chosen, just as original sin is not chosen. But how we act out those conditions can sometimes be a problem.

 

[portarica]

Jesus does not call us to treat all behaviors equally. No matter the weakness we are all called to journey to the cross.

You take the argument about physical differences and answer it with one about behavior.

Its nice to be so passionate about an issue that you will use any tact to try to prove your point. But unless you are preaching to the choir and want them to say "yea right on " it does nothing to prove or disprove what is being discussed.

Its like the posters that still ignore that we are not discussing sacramental marriage, but marriage in secular society. While society may influence religion and vice versa; at least in the US if the church never marries gays that’s alright with the government and with me.

But even if the Church feels acting gay is disordered, if society thinks it is not, then it may allow gay marriages. And if society allows gay marriages and the church doesn’t it doesn’t mean that the word “marriage” can not be used by society because the church says so.

The wording of laws is done by government. I would think that would be considered one of the things left to “Caesar”.

Peace

 

[portarica]

No-- I am not saying that “God’s design must meet a standard of perfection arrived at by man.” I am saying that God designed humans, and yet there are sometimes aberrations from that design.
For instance, God created humans to be perfectly happy in the garden of Eden. Guess what? Adam and Eve messed it up. That was a deviation from God’s design. It doesn’t change the design.

So too with homosexuality or hermaphroditism. Those conditions are deviations from the design intended by God. Now I’m not saying that those conditions are chosen, just as original sin is not chosen. But how we act out those conditions can sometimes be a problem.

You understand that you are mixing conditions in the eyes of the church? Homosexuality in the eyes of the church is chosen.

Are you suggesting that hermaphrodites choose to be configured that way? Perhaps you feel they do that in the womb?

Or does your post suggest that we ( me included) might have a tendency to treat some of the least differently because of their appearance or physical condition, even though we may intellectually say we treat ever child of God the same way?

Peace

 

[surritter]

You understand that you are mixing conditions in the eyes of the church? Homosexuality in the eyes of the church is chosen.

Are you suggesting that hermaphrodites choose to be configured that way? Perhaps you feel they do that in the womb?

Or does your post suggest that we ( me included) might have a tendency to treat some of the least differently because of their appearance or physical condition, even though we may intellectually say we treat ever child of God the same way?

It doesn’t matter if it’s chosen or not; that’s not for us to say. What I am talking about are ACTIONS.

You are going off on all sorts of tangents. The main topic: marriage has a foundational purpose (which you deny), and that purpose is built upon the generation of a family.
To that end, the design of the human body requires a male and a female to generate a family (duh!).
So to try to create a marriage without that design foundation is not a marriage at all.

You mentioned that there’s a difference between sacramental marriage and secular marriage. Yes, there are differences regarding theology (the flow of grace, etc.), but that has nothing to do with the discussion of hetero vs. homo marriage.

So I am asking: If marriage has nothing to do with sexuality, then what is the foundational basis for “secular” marriage? Is it merely to gain legal rights of survivorship? Please explain.

 

[estesbob]

You take the argument about physical differences and answer it with one about behavior.

Its nice to be so passionate about an issue that you will use any tact to try to prove your point. But unless you are preaching to the choir and want them to say "yea right on " it does nothing to prove or disprove what is being discussed.

Its like the posters that still ignore that we are not discussing sacramental marriage, but marriage in secular society. While society may influence religion and vice versa; at least in the US if the church never marries gays that’s alright with the government and with me.

But even if the Church feels acting gay is disordered, if society thinks it is not, then it may allow gay marriages. And if society allows gay marriages and the church doesn’t it doesn’t mean that the word “marriage” can not be used by society because the church says so.

The wording of laws is done by government. I would think that would be considered one of the things left to “Caesar”.

Peace

So what we are faced with is your assumptions based on your opinion which springs from the current culture present in the United States. OTH we have the Church’s teachings that have bene consistent for 2,000 years and teachings that were accepted by nearly everyone until we became so “enlightened” in the last 40 years.

So the question boils down to this-should someone entrust their immortal soul to your opinions or the teachings of the Church?

 

[portarica]

It doesn’t matter if it’s chosen or not; that’s not for us to say. What I am talking about are ACTIONS.

You are going off on all sorts of tangents. The main topic: marriage has a foundational purpose (which you deny), and that purpose is built upon the generation of a family.
To that end, the design of the human body requires a male and a female to generate a family (duh!).
So to try to create a marriage without that design foundation is not a marriage at all.

You mentioned that there’s a difference between sacramental marriage and secular marriage. Yes, there are differences regarding theology (the flow of grace, etc.), but that has nothing to do with the discussion of hetero vs. homo marriage.

So I am asking: If marriage has nothing to do with sexuality, then what is the foundational basis for “secular” marriage? Is it merely to gain legal rights of survivorship? Please explain.

You ask for examples of something and when I show them to you , you say they do not count.

Why? because when I answer your questions, you change the question.

Lets consider your latest variation:

So I am asking: If marriage has nothing to do with sexuality, then what is the foundational basis for “secular” marriage? Is it merely to gain legal rights of survivorship? Please explain.
Lets look at how you word it.

You start with a comment attributed to me that I didn’t make and as far I can remember, nobody in the thread made: If marriage has nothing to do with sexuality, then what is the foundational basis for a “secular” marriage?

Aside from avoiding the real discussion by making stuff up out of thin air, you do realize that the church has described sacramental marriage as much more than just sexuality.

And the church continues to expand upon this point in its writings about the fullness of marriage. Why , because the past descriptions for the basis of marriage that were based primarily on the pro creative aspect of sacramental marriage ignored the reality that many catholics entering marriage had no ability to fulfill the pro creative aspect of the marriage.

So to answer your question about the non sexual components of marriage, you can do the work and just use the church’s reasons for allowing people to marry who have no ability to meat the traditional pro-creative nature of catholic marriage.

Don’t rely on what I say are reasons, use the reasons the church uses. I’m sure they are in the references made by other posters in their signatures.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

So what we are faced with is your assumptions based on your opinion which springs from the current culture present in the United States. OTH we have the Church’s teachings that have bene consistent for 2,000 years and teachings that were accepted by nearly everyone until we became so “enlightened” in the last 40 years.

So the question boils down to this-should someone entrust their immortal soul to your opinions or the teachings of the Church?

Exactly. And we know the Church has made mistakes in the past, so producing examples of those in no way proves that the Church is wrong about this issue. Also it should be noted that the Church has not been wrong in the area of Faith and Morals.

I would rather put my faith in the Church that Christ founded and told Peter that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, then trust in man.

 

[portarica]

So what we are faced with is your assumptions based on your opinion which springs from the current culture present in the United States. OTH we have the Church’s teachings that have bene consistent for 2,000 years and teachings that were accepted by nearly everyone until we became so “enlightened” in the last 40 years.

So the question boils down to this-should someone entrust their immortal soul to your opinions or the teachings of the Church?

Actually much of the reasoning for treating the least differently than others comes from the OT.

And just as modern food science has made much of Lev obsolete, much has been learned in the last couple of centuries that obsoletes some of what has been held as scientific truth by the church.

Remember that ours was a institution that held the sun revolved around the earth. And it prosecuted and did nasty things to people who held otherwise. Galileo is one example of one who was later exonerated, but others didn’t have the fortunate (if you can call it that) punishment and subsequent outcome that Galileo received.

It was an institution that had people killed for disagreeing with it. Not about the teachings of Jesus, which do remain timeless, but for holdings of the church that were later proved to be false. It must have been fun to be burned at the stake, huh?

As far as trusting your immortal soul to me, I appreciate that you feel that some people may feel that way, but in all humility I must decline the responsibility.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Actually much of the reasoning for treating the least differently than others comes from the OT.

And just as modern food science has made much of Lev obsolete, much has been learned in the last couple of centuries that obsoletes some of what has been held as scientific truth by the church.

Remember that ours was a institution that held the sun revolved around the earth. And it prosecuted and did nasty things to people who held otherwise. Galileo is one example of one who was later exonerated, but others didn’t have the fortunate (if you can call it that) punishment and subsequent outcome that Galileo received.

It was an institution that had people killed for disagreeing with it. Not about the teachings of Jesus, which do remain timeless, but for holdings of the church that were later proved to be false. It must have been fun to be burned at the stake, huh?

As far as trusting your immortal soul to me, I appreciate that you feel that some people may feel that way, but in all humility I must decline the responsibility.

Peace

Again, I am sorry to question you, but are you sure you’re not Protestant?

First of all, the Church did NOT persecute Galileo. catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

As for Lev, it is true that some things were changed, but we have no reason to think that all changed. Jesus himself said it was not what goes into the mouth that defiles, but what comes out.

When did the Church burn anyone at the stake? Are you referring to Witches. That was not Catholics but Protestants. Your anti-Catholic statements trouble me, can you at least cite come sources?

 

[portarica]

Again, I am sorry to question you, but are you sure you’re not Protestant?

First of all, the Church did NOT persecute Galileo. catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

As for Lev, it is true that some things were changed, but we have no reason to think that all changed. Jesus himself said it was not what goes into the mouth that defiles, but what comes out.

When did the Church burn anyone at the stake? Are you referring to Witches. That was not Catholics but Protestants. Your anti-Catholic statements trouble me, can you at least cite come sources?

Perhaps before you start saying I’m saying anti catholic statements you should look into the complete history of St Thomas More and the work of the inquisition.

As far as having secular authorities actually light the fires, that doesn’t separate the Catholic Cardinals and later to be saints from OK’ing the fires to be lit.

Peace

 

[portarica]

Again, I am sorry to question you, but are you sure you’re not Protestant?

First of all, the Church did NOT persecute Galileo. catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

As for Lev, it is true that some things were changed, but we have no reason to think that all changed. Jesus himself said it was not what goes into the mouth that defiles, but what comes out.

When did the Church burn anyone at the stake? Are you referring to Witches. That was not Catholics but Protestants. Your anti-Catholic statements trouble me, can you at least cite come sources?

Lets see the church had Galileo locked up and confined to quarters (albeit nice ones, hence the comment in my post) so they put him away without charging him. So technically they harmed him, but didn’t harm him because they didn’t actually use a proceeding against him.

And it was OK because they released him later and that made everything previous to the incarceration go away?

Is that what you are saying? So it was like that guy in Germany that locked up the teenage girl. He didn’t do anything wrong because he just put her in the basement without a trial?

Peace