Gay Marriage

[OraLabora]

Except when Jesus was speaking those words He was talking about Marriage.

And it’s been our understanding of marriage for at a couple of millennia. Even in civil marriage, until governments started messing around with same-sex marriage, non-consummation was grounds for an annulment. Not a divorce, an annulment.

Love and marriage are completely different things. In many cultures marriages are arranged and the future spouses have no say in the choice of their mate. They are no less valid. Most of the times the couples do come to love and respect each other, and the failure rate is much less than in our Western “love” based marriages.

 

[OraLabora]

If Jesus had spoken to my wife first , He might be telling us that snuggling on a chilly evening or walking hand in hand on the beach at sunset or holding my hand at my mom’s funeral made us as one as any other time.

Peace

Those are all very nice in a marriage and in fact are desirable. Not all marriages are as happy. But what you describe has no bearing on the validity of the union.

It may seem very unfair that an injured war vet incapable of sex but deeply in love with someone who loves him in return, cannot be sacramentally married, whereas a wife-beating alcoholic can, but that’s the way it is. The sacrament of marriage is a God-given union. That this union is misused is to be expected given our fallen state. But that does not subtract from the union, it subtracts from us.

Using Chessmane’s analogy of chocolate chip cookies, you can make a very bad chocolate chip cookie that tastes terrible, and an excellent plain cookie that tastes great. But no amount of wishing it so will make the plain cookie a chocolate chip cookie, and no matter how bad the chocolate chip cookie, it’s still a chocolate chip cookie.

I gather very much from reading your posts that you’re reacting from the heart and emotionally on the subject, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but for the greater good the Church’s leaders must react cerebrally and objectively.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Oh I thought He was talking about sex, my bad.

No, you’re right, He was talking about Sex. And He was talking about Marriage.

Sex and Marriage were never meant to be separated.

 

[portarica]

Those are all very nice in a marriage and in fact are desirable. Not all marriages are as happy. But what you describe has no bearing on the validity of the union.

It may seem very unfair that an injured war vet incapable of sex but deeply in love with someone who loves him in return, cannot be sacramentally married, whereas a wife-beating alcoholic can, but that’s the way it is. The sacrament of marriage is a God-given union. That this union is misused is to be expected given our fallen state. But that does not subtract from the union, it subtracts from us.

Using Chessmane’s analogy of chocolate chip cookies, you can make a very bad chocolate chip cookie that tastes terrible, and an excellent plain cookie that tastes great. But no amount of wishing it so will make the plain cookie a chocolate chip cookie, and no matter how bad the chocolate chip cookie, it’s still a chocolate chip cookie.

I gather very much from reading your posts that you’re reacting from the heart and emotionally on the subject, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but for the greater good the Church’s leaders must react cerebrally and objectively.

Actually our leaders don’t react cerebrally (and with logic) or objectively.

If they did they would consider the total spectrum of marriage and realize it is the covenant between the participants that makes the marriage.

The present responses to marriage is subjective and not objective because many of the physical requirements that are mentioned by you and others , while not denied by the church are not presently considered by the church in the marriage of some. While this may be a practical matter. It underscores the inconsistencies in the way the church applies reasoning to matters concerning sex.

As for the greater good you mentioned , are more people better off spiritually if the vet can marry. Of course it is a no brainer. It not only helps the individuals involved, but speaks very powerfully to treating the least like they may be He.

As far as my emotional involvement goes , I realize that good sex can make a good marriage great, but it can’t make a bad marriage good.

Which brings us to the point of the chocolate chip analogy. In that analogy the focus is on the chips or the sex. By emphasizing the adjective instead of the noun or cookie you ignore the bulk of the cookie or the marriage that is outside the realm of sex.

The beauty of marriage and of how Jesus taught is that the possibilities for good in a marriage and how His love can be put into practice in a marriage are endless and not constrained by history or tradition.

The church has traditionally had a very narrow view of what was required from a marriage. Not only were the requirements narrow, but the expectations and potentiality of marriage were limited as well.

And as Paul said we would be doing better to not get married. We know he has had a great deal of influence on the many matters concerning not just the validity of marriage but the worth of marriage.

In its narrow view of the requirements of marriage the church has emphasized what makes a marriage sacramentally valid and ignored the worth of marriage to the married, the congregation and future generations.That is neither cerebral or objective. It is selfish and shortsighted.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Which brings us to the point of the chocolate chip analogy. In that analogy the focus is on the chips or the sex. By emphasizing the adjective instead of the noun or cookie you ignore the bulk of the cookie or the marriage that is outside the realm of sex.

But that is the point, you should not emphasize anything. The point of the analogy is that without the chips, the cookie is not a chocolate chip cookie.

Without sex, it is not a marriage. The converse is not true though. Having sex, or good sex, or great sex, does not make a marriage either. A marriage is more than sex. But without sex, it is not a marriage.

 

[surritter]

But that is the point, you should not emphasize anything. The point of the analogy is that without the chips, the cookie is not a chocolate chip cookie.

Without sex, it is not a marriage. The converse is not true though. Having sex, or good sex, or great sex, does not make a marriage either. A marriage is more than sex. But without sex, it is not a marriage.

And without procreation as part of the natural order, it is not sex.

This is not to say that procreative abilities must be active, but that the reproduction design forms the definition for what sex is.

 

[portarica]

And without procreation as part of the natural order, it is not sex.

This is not to say that procreative abilities must be active, but that the reproduction design forms the definition for what sex is.

We already know that God had designs that are not reproductive in nature.

The natural order didn’t have marriage but it did have sex so that throws that argument out.

We know the church breaks its own rules because people who are “disordered” do get married in the church even though I guess that makes them invalid, but they do get married which is the point.

Why do marriages get performed that have no possibility of meeting all the church’s claims or requirements for validity? Because pastorally it makes no sense to not marry the vet. We all know instances where a priest has done something that is wiser than the rules.

As far a tradition goes, it is wonderful if it preserves wisdom, on the other hand it is lacking when it ignores advances in knowledge and the evolution and growth of how to apply Jesus’ teachings to more situations.

The formulators of the earliest traditions had very narrow views of the world, little knowledge of science, and all kinds of allegiances that were not necessarily as spiritual as they were political.

The result is spiritual rules that are based on physical observations that are no longer valid.

Peace

 

[surritter]

We already know that God had designs that are not reproductive in nature.

The natural order didn’t have marriage but it did have sex so that throws that argument out.

Frankly, that does NOT throw the argument out. Sex is possible without marriage – that’s biology, of course. But please notice what I am saying: marriage by its very nature is based on making a family, and that requires that the nature of the participants be ordered to procreation, whether or not they can fully carry it out. I guess it’s like the cookie analogy. You can have chocolate chips without a cookie, but you can’t have a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate chips.
Your reply above is akin to saying “since chocolate chips exist outside of a cookie, then chocolate chip cookies can be made without chocolate chips.” See the fallacy?
But wait, you say, we can still discuss cookies without the chocolate chip adjective. So please answer a question that I posed to you a few days ago:
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?

We know the church breaks its own rules because people who are “disordered” do get married in the church even though I guess that makes them invalid, but they do get married which is the point.

I say this with charity, but why do you not read our posts? Or perhaps you do, but it would be best to reply with substantive reasons rather than rehashing your disagreement.
People who are infertile are still male or female, so their bodies are still designed toward procreation when united. Analogy: a car is meant to be driven. The fact that it sits in the garage all the time doesn’t change its natural order. You can argue all you want about whether there’s gas in the tank, but it is still a valid car. But if I try to drive a laptop computer down the road, that would be pretty ridiculous, right? That’s because it’s not ordered to participate in the function of driving.

Why do marriages get performed that have no possibility of meeting all the church’s claims or requirements for validity?

Those marriages don’t get performed, so this is a red herring. Please read this carefully: Infertility of a man or woman does NOT make a marriage invalid because their bodies are still male and female. A homosexual marriage would be invalid because the participants are not male and female, and thus the marriage cannot be ordered to procreation. You are confusing the order of something with the actual ability to directly carry out the ends of that order.

 

[portarica]

Frankly, that does NOT throw the argument out. Sex is possible without marriage – that’s biology, of course. But please notice what I am saying: marriage by its very nature is based on making a family, and that requires that the nature of the participants be ordered to procreation, whether or not they can fully carry it out. I guess it’s like the cookie analogy. You can have chocolate chips without a cookie, but you can’t have a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate chips.
Your reply above is akin to saying “since chocolate chips exist outside of a cookie, then chocolate chip cookies can be made without chocolate chips.” See the fallacy?
But wait, you say, we can still discuss cookies without the chocolate chip adjective. So please answer a question that I posed to you a few days ago:
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?

I say this with charity, but why do you not read our posts? Or perhaps you do, but it would be best to reply with substantive reasons rather than rehashing your disagreement.
People who are infertile are still male or female, so their bodies are still designed toward procreation when united. Analogy: a car is meant to be driven. The fact that it sits in the garage all the time doesn’t change its natural order. You can argue all you want about whether there’s gas in the tank, but it is still a valid car. But if I try to drive a laptop computer down the road, that would be pretty ridiculous, right? That’s because it’s not ordered to participate in the function of driving.

Those marriages don’t get performed, so this is a red herring. Please read this carefully: Infertility of a man or woman does NOT make a marriage invalid because their bodies are still male and female. A homosexual marriage would be invalid because the participants are not male and female, and thus the marriage cannot be ordered to procreation. You are confusing the order of something with the actual ability to directly carry out the ends of that order.

Infertility may not make a marriage invalid but impotence does.

Why? Because in the past they thought babies were present in the sperm and just had to be nurtured in the women. That’s also why it was OK to stone a women in adultery, but not the man. It was because the role of the women in pro creation was unknown. It was all about the guy. It wasn’t even about the marriage as a joining of two people it was about the ability to have sex.

I agree with you the the rule exists . However, it was invented in a much more ignorant time, I agree that the reasoning was from tradition, I agree that the rule doesn’t care whether the husband beats the wife or any other aspect of marriage, because they don’t count. It was when most people only lived to be in their 20’s. The rule didn’t foresee a need for marriages between old people, and people who were sent off to war didn’t live productive lives if they got “disordered” in combat.

You keep saying that it is the ability to perform sex that makes a marriage. Apparently the church agrees. They also thought cats were the devil incarnate and that the sun revolved around the earth.

We know that with the exception of Siamese cats that those two holdings are untrue, but I guess the Siamese cats are like the chocolate chips in your analogy. So you win.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

Why?** Because in the past they thought babies were present in the sperm and just had to be nurtured in the women**. That’s also why it was OK to stone a women in adultery, but not the man. It was because the role of the women in pro creation was unknown. It was all about the guy. It wasn’t even about the marriage as a joining of two people it was about the ability to have sex.

I spent four year in the seminary and have a minor in catholic theology-I have NEVER seen where the church taught this, never. can you privde us a source?

Please note that Church also never taught it was appropriate to stne wmen who commited audltery.

Of course once again it has abosolutely nothing to do with the morality of homosexual behavior.

BTW-have you ever read John Paul the Greats “Theology of the Body”? It might help clear up a lot of the myths and misconcpetions you have bought into to

 

[portarica]

I spent four year in the seminary and have a minor in catholic theology-I have NEVER seen where the church taught this, never. can you privde us a source?

Please note that Church also never taught it was appropriate to stne wmen who commited audltery.

Of course once again it has abosolutely nothing to do with the morality of homosexual behavior.

BTW-have you ever read John Paul the Greats “Theology of the Body”? It might help clear up a lot of the myths and misconcpetions you have bought into to

you never heard the term spilling the seed? Gen 38:9

Peace

 

[estesbob]

you never heard the term spilling the seed? Gen 38:9

Peace

Yes I have BUT you have stated many times that catholic teachings on Marriage and sexualtiy are based on the assumption that sperm contained little babies. I have NEVER run across this."

 

[estesbob]

Yes I have BUT you have stated many times that catholic teachings on Marriage and sexualtiy are based on the assumption that sperm contained little babies. I have NEVER run across this.

 

[portarica]

Yes I have BUT you have stated many times that catholic teachings on Marriage and sexualtiy are based on the assumption that sperm contained little babies. I have NEVER run across this."

The assumption is based on believing that the sperm contain everything needed to produce a child. The completeness of “seed”.

Peace

 

[fix]

Infertility may not make a marriage invalid but impotence does.

Why? Because in the past they thought babies were present in the sperm and just had to be nurtured in the women. That’s also why it was OK to stone a women in adultery, but not the man. It was because the role of the women in pro creation was unknown. It was all about the guy. It wasn’t even about the marriage as a joining of two people it was about the ability to have sex.

I agree with you the the rule exists . However, it was invented in a much more ignorant time, I agree that the reasoning was from tradition, I agree that the rule doesn’t care whether the husband beats the wife or any other aspect of marriage, because they don’t count. It was when most people only lived to be in their 20’s. The rule didn’t foresee a need for marriages between old people, and people who were sent off to war didn’t live productive lives if they got “disordered” in combat.

You keep saying that it is the ability to perform sex that makes a marriage. Apparently the church agrees. They also thought cats were the devil incarnate and that the sun revolved around the earth.

We know that with the exception of Siamese cats that those two holdings are untrue, but I guess the Siamese cats are like the chocolate chips in your analogy. So you win.

Peace

If you think you can refute Church teaching it would help if you accurately stated what and why She teaches rather than imputing your false notions to Her.

Thank you.

 

[estesbob]

The assumption is based on believing that the sperm contain everything needed to produce a child. The completeness of “seed”.

Peace

But to my knowledge the church has never tuaght that. In addtion i know for sure that their teachings on homosexualtiy and marriage have no basis whatsover in this assumption

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you think you can refute Church teaching it would help if you accurately stated what and why She teaches rather than imputing your false notions to Her.

Thank you.

:clapping:

 

[portarica]

But to my knowledge the church has never tuaght that. In addtion i know for sure that their teachings on homosexualtiy and marriage have no basis whatsover in this assumption

The issues arises because the church at one time used the bible as if it was a scientific reference. And in those times it was with good reason. When originally written it was the text that served as a reference for most subjects and there was little else that compared to it.

It was the biology book (origin of man , Gen ), it was a food safety text ( lev. and trichinosis)It was poetry (psalms) and it served the its first audience pretty well , especially in comparison to the other available texts.

In addition to writings based on observation , it was also a story book. Noah and the flood, the history of man from Garden of Eden to Jesus in only 6,000 years etc. etc.

Then there are the predictions from the OT to Paul to Rev. Many of these predictions are based on precedent texts and/or oral history revisions from other cultures in the middle east and Mediterranean.

Two of the issues the young church faced were of credibility and authority. They didn’t think the teachings of Jesus or the works He performed were sufficient to establish credibility and authority for the new religion. If they did, the gospels would have been enough.

From a practical standpoint of building the business side of the church, they needed a product that would sell. Receiving a smile because you treated your neighbor well wasn’t going to succeed. And how can you feed the hungry when so much of the population was hungry?

What did the people want? They wanted the good old days. So what did the church give them? It gave them the good old days. But with a warning, be good because yours is probably the final generation so while you are looking forward to a fabulous entry into heaven with the visions of angels and all that stuff there are some conditions. You must believe Jesus is the only way in.

So we ended up with many of the laws being based on the OT version of fact with the caveat that you must believe in Jesus. but never a requirement that we had to act as Jesus taught us to act.
So the early laws were really variations of the OT laws, which were based on the observable science of the day and an emphasis on the patriarchal nature of Jewish law. Up through the middle ages there was little change in the view of the world since the OT.

Later the church said it could never do a better job than it had done because it was infallible regarding morals and doctrine. So despite having laws, morals and doctrine being based on untruths that were relied upon up to the time infallibility was codified they couldn’t be changed because they were now carved in stone and now that the church had told people they were always right, the church can’t legally change anything or it breaks the law of infallibility that it used to paint itself in a corner.

But contrary to this whole concept of a static set of morals and doctrine is the fact that Jesus’s teachings can be applied to sets of actions and realities that were never imagined by the people who were carving the stone in the past.

This is not to say that any of the core holdings of the church must change, but that some changes are not only possible, but required if the church is to be truer to what Jesus taught.

One place that has changed is the notion that you must be catholic to be saved. It was held by the church at one time that you had to be catholic to get into heaven. That was when the insurance sales people were running the show and they thought they had come up with a better selling product than helping the least.

While that product sold very well and sometimes they even killed you if you didn’t buy it. It was realized that the millions of people the church didn’t even know existed probably should have an out to get into heaven, so then we had invincible ignorance added as a get out of jail card free to address the issue of what to do with them .

So does the church change doctrine yes, but because it says it can’t, it says it has developed. Even though the wording it originally used was absolute i.e. like having to be catholic to get into heaven .

So what does that mean? To me I would hope the church can change because it is a very human institution. My faith which I received through the church isn’t predicated on a perfect church that is infallible. What does it mean To you? I can’t answer that.

My faith in what Jesus taught didn’t catch fire in me because I was told it was what I had to believe. In fact if what we believe in is even partly determined by the credibility of who and what is teaching us I might not be Catholic. If what I believed in was in anyway related to the actions of those that call themselves princes of the church I might not be catholic.

But my faith in what Jesus taught is so strong and bolstered by the evidence of the actions of those that put Jesus’ teachings into action that I can ignore the human frailties of the church and focus on what Jesus taught.

But the practicality of what Rome has done can’t be ignored either. It is much easier to tell people what they can’t do, then to get them to do what Jesus taught us to do. It has got them a billion followers that probably wouldn’t recognize the least if He was standing right next to us. But we are not required to be able to recognize Jesus, are we?

BTW, if you believe every thing the church states is true, I have no issue with that. I am all for people having strong faiths. And from a practical standpoint if you believe everything the church says, you probably believe a lot of the things I believe. And among those people who have been inspirations to me and evidence of the good within the church are some people very close to me who are totally obedient to the church. Saintly even.
Peace

 

[estesbob]

The issues arises because the church at one time used the bible as if it was a scientific reference. And in those times it was with good reason. When originally written it was the text that served as a reference for most subjects and there was little else that compared to it.

It was the biology book (origin of man , Gen ), it was a food safety text ( lev. and trichinosis)It was poetry (psalms) and it served the its first audience pretty well , especially in comparison to the other available texts.

In addition to writings based on observation , it was also a story book. Noah and the flood, the history of man from Garden of Eden to Jesus in only 6,000 years etc. etc.

Then there are the predictions from the OT to Paul to Rev. Many of these predictions are based on precedent texts and/or oral history revisions from other cultures in the middle east and Mediterranean.
.
Peace

You have presented no evidence whatsoever that the Church’s teaching on marriage and homosexuality was based on on mistaken scientific beliefs. When asked to provide this evidence you have not been able to do so.

You keep saying your faith is in what Jesus taught but you seem to have come to your conclusions as to what Jesus taught based on you and your Mothers own personal opinions and prejudices.

Jesus founded a Cuurch to guide us-we dont have to try and figue everything out for ourselves-It has been laid on on clear detail for over 2,000 years.

 

[portarica]

You have presented no evidence whatsoever that the Church’s teaching on marriage and homosexuality was based on on mistaken scientific beliefs. When asked to provide this evidence you have not been able to do so.

You keep saying your faith is in what Jesus taught but you seem to have come to your conclusions as to what Jesus taught based on you and your Mothers own personal opinions and prejudices.

Jesus founded a Cuurch to guide us-we dont have to try and figue everything out for ourselves-It has been laid on on clear detail for over 2,000 years.

BTW You didn’t understand what my mother taught me, she was saying go to church and have an open mind. She was saying not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So you are saying that the church’s teachings on sexuality in marriage and have nothing to do with the OT perception of the physical and spiritual nature of men and women?

I show you evidence where Church doctrine has changed and you ignore it. (must be catholic to be saved)

I say that Jesus’ message is boundless and you say it should be constrained in the same form the church saw it during the inquisition. That’s the real point
That’s OK with me.

Peace