Gay Marriage

[Charlemagne_III]

For the record, all sodomites are sexual extremists.

As a Catholic you should know this and agree with it.

Heterosexual sex is not extremist unless it involves a criminal act such as rape or an unnatural act such as sodomy or acts of sex for pleasure and money such as prostitution or hedonistic sleeping around.

 

[SMGS127]

Heterosexual sex is not extremist unless it involves a criminal act such as rape or an unnatural act such as sodomy or acts of sex for pleasure and money such as prostitution or hedonistic sleeping around.

Or done with contraception (albeit included under sodomy), or done premaritally, or done without concluding in vaginal intercourse for the male (albeit included under sodomy), or done in a manner degrading to one of the spouses, or…

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

For the record, all sodomites are sexual extremists.

As a Catholic you should know this and agree with it.

Heterosexual sex is not extremist unless it involves a criminal act such as rape or an unnatural act such as sodomy or acts of sex for pleasure and money such as prostitution or hedonistic sleeping around.

Define “sexual extremist”

Or done with contraception (albeit included under sodomy), or done premaritally, or done without concluding in vaginal intercourse for the male (albeit included under sodomy), or done in a manner degrading to one of the spouses, or…

So much burn

 

[Nacho45]

I really don’t like quoting myself, but…

Homosexual unions are wrong (always has been, always will be) no matter what title a person places on them and any Catholic should abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter…period.

There really is nothing else to be said on the matter.

We spend so much time and effort twisting, spinning and cherry picking information while making unrelated arguments having nothing to do with the topic and fail to realize the work has already been completed. No matter what face we put on the debate, no matter what argument we present, no matter how much we may want something to be a certain way, the debate was settled long ago and there literally is nothing else to say on the matter. Even if man is able to turn things upside down in this world, it has no lasting effect and changes nothing on the grand universal/eternal scale. Things are what they are regardless of what one may want them to be, so if you’re Catholic, accept the truth and stop lying to yourself and others. You can spread your heresy elsewhere but stop trying to tear down the Holy Church in the process.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I really don’t like quoting myself, but…

We spend so much time and effort twisting, spinning and cherry picking information while making unrelated arguments having nothing to do with the topic and fail to realize the work has already been completed. No matter what face we put on the debate, no matter what argument we present, no matter how much we may want something to be a certain way, the debate was settled long ago and there literally is nothing else to say on the matter. Even if man is able to turn things upside down in this world, it has no lasting effect and changes nothing on the grand universal/eternal scale. Things are what they are regardless of what one may want them to be, so if you’re Catholic, accept the truth and stop lying to yourself and others. You can spread your heresy elsewhere but stop trying to tear down the Holy Church in the process.

Who are you even talking to?

 

[Rau]

I really don’t like quoting myself, but…

We spend so much time and effort twisting, spinning and cherry picking information while making unrelated arguments having nothing to do with the topic and fail to realize the work has already been completed. No matter what face we put on the debate, no matter what argument we present, no matter how much we may want something to be a certain way, the debate was settled long ago and there literally is nothing else to say on the matter. Even if man is able to turn things upside down in this world, it has no lasting effect and changes nothing on the grand universal/eternal scale. Things are what they are regardless of what one may want them to be, so if you’re Catholic, accept the truth and stop lying to yourself and others. You can spread your heresy elsewhere but stop trying to tear down the Holy Church in the process.

If this approach to understanding works for you, that is fine. But people vary in their need to work things through, to internalise understanding. What you may see as fruitless debate, others find necessary. Neither is wrong. Not everyone solves problems the same way, or treads the same faith path. And it need not be about “wishing things to be different” (though that applies to some). So, I’m suggesting it’s OK to allow people to work through a process, rather than just telling them to accept that the answer is already established. Certainly the latter approach will not aid them at arriving at the truth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You can absolutely find evil in all kinds of situations. Do you have a link to married couples where the mother or father have molested their children or other children. I am not saying all married gay couples should be able to adopt children but at least they go through a screening process, unlike heterosexual couples where there are plenty that should never be allowed to have children.

It seem to me that you are the one saying it is wrong or bad for any gay couple to be able to adopt children. I am say that there are some very good gay couple that make wonderful caring parents. There are some that should certainly not have children, just like some heterosexuals.

It is my experiences and knowledge of some Catholics to be not as kind, accepting and Christ like as some of the gay people I know. This is not a judgement it has been my experience. Just like every group of people, there are ones that simply don’t act as nice, yes even some Catholic.

The problem is that YOU are trotting out your experience as if that is an argument. It isn’t. You completely misconstrued my point.

The point being made is that children optimally need a mother and father to foster their BEST development and chances for success in life. You cannot point to the failure of some parents to parent well as an argument against good parenting by both a mother and father. It is shifting the argument away from the point being made which is that when a mother and a father together consistently parent well, that situation is far better than any other contrived situation as far as the welfare of children is concerned.

You cannot use the fact that some parents are negligent or abusive as an argument against good parenting nor to support parenting by some other arrangement. In fact, if endorsing open parenting structures undermines the optimal situation, that becomes an argument for protecting the optimal situation in the face of impetuous change.

Apparently, you don’t understand the argument being made and how your response is simply a diversion away from the issue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just as you don’t want the actions of a few to speak for all, the same goes for gay people.

Yet, it is okay for you to speak for all (or at least the “vast majority”) of gay people?

The vast majority of them are not extremists. They do not want…

What I find interesting in your posts is that you accuse others of doing precisely the thing you use to rail against “them.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Would you like me to post dozens of links about father’s molesting their daughters?

And how would that serve as disproof that GOOD parenting by a mother and father is the optimal situation as far as the well-being and future of children is concerned? Yes, bad, negligent or abusive parenting by anyone is not conducive to the welfare of children, but how is that an argument against good parenting and what children need in their lives?

You also missed the point.

 

[Peter_Plato]

ETA: and as much as no one here probably wants to hear this, the number of heterosexual couples who divorce far outnumber the amount of homosexual couples who are extremists.

I am still waiting for this added point to make its estimated arrival time in the land of reality. Alas, it seems to have been lost somewhere over the Netherlands.

Something for you to read while you wait…

winst.org/wp-content/uploads/WI_Marriage_and_the_Public_Good.pdf

 

[Nacho45]

Who are you even talking to?

I am even talking to whomever this applies. If the shoe fits. It would generally apply to anyone who claims the title of Catholic yet spreads heretical viewpoints in contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s one thing to spread false information out of innocent ignorance, but it’s a serious problem with knowing what one is saying is a violation of Church teachings yet that person keeps repeating the mantra over and over as if believing it will somehow, through some magical property, become a reality when in fact it never will, even if the entire world accepts it as such. Doing this, whether the person wants to acknowledge this fact or not, is a direct attack on the Church from inside her walls. This sort of intentional mutiny is an attempt to tear down the Church, even if the one doing this claims it is not. So, that’s who I am even talking to.

 

[Nacho45]

If this approach to understanding works for you, that is fine. But people vary in their need to work things through, to internalise understanding. What you may see as fruitless debate, others find necessary. Neither is wrong. Not everyone solves problems the same way, or treads the same faith path. And it need not be about “wishing things to be different” (though that applies to some). So, I’m suggesting it’s OK to allow people to work through a process, rather than just telling them to accept that the answer is already established. Certainly the latter approach will not aid them at arriving at the truth.

People do need to work through these problems and the Church has already supplied the needed resources to do this very thing. What should not happen is allowing a person who struggles to be taught incorrect information, much of which is being produced here, and thinking they have found some help when in fact all that has happened is they are worse off than they were before. If the person does not accept the Church has the answers, they have already begun their journey down the wrong path. The knowledge and trust in the Church must be established and that does not happen when people claiming to speak for Catholicism lie about Catholicism and teach something dangerous and damaging to a struggling persons soul. When the one struggling accepts the Church has the answers, accepts those answers to be truth and factual, that is the beginning of the journey and where the healing process can begin, not before.

 

[Nacho45]

The problem is that YOU are trotting out your experience as if that is an argument. It isn’t. You completely misconstrued my point.

The point being made is that children optimally need a mother and father to foster their BEST development and chances for success in life. You cannot point to the failure of some parents to parent well as an argument against good parenting by both a mother and father. It is shifting the argument away from the point being made which is that when a mother and a father together consistently parent well, that situation is far better than any other contrived situation as far as the welfare of children is concerned.

You cannot use the fact that some parents are negligent or abusive as an argument against good parenting nor to support parenting by some other arrangement. In fact, if endorsing open parenting structures undermines the optimal situation, that becomes an argument for protecting the optimal situation in the face of impetuous change.

Apparently, you don’t understand the argument being made and how your response is simply a diversion away from the issue.

Well said and a good presentation. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Rau]

People do need to work through these problems and the Church has already supplied the needed resources to do this very thing…

I wonder then why you choose to participate on these forums? Surely it is not simply to make the above statement? Saying “you are wrong because the Church says so” may be accurate, but it is neither persuasive nor helpful to a Catholic who struggles with doubts, let alone a person who comes here without a Catholic background.

 

[Nacho45]

I wonder then why you choose to participate on these forums? Surely it is not simply to make the above statement? Saying “you are wrong because the Church says so” may be accurate, but it is neither persuasive nor helpful to a Catholic who struggles with doubts, let alone a person who comes here without a Catholic background.

My desire to participate in these threads or on this forum is irrelevant and has nothing at all to do with anything being said.

Why do people provide “advice” which is intrinsically NOT Catholic on a Catholic forum for those people with struggles and doubts who came to a Catholic forum for Catholic advice? It isn’t like these people accidentally stumbled across a site which was not obviously Catholic? If people want to provide advice or guidance, it makes sense to ensure that advice is in line with Catholic teaching especially if the person providing the “advice” identifies as being Catholic.

 

[shelby_sun]

The problem is that YOU are trotting out your experience as if that is an argument. It isn’t. You completely misconstrued my point.

The point being made is that children optimally need a mother and father to foster their BEST development and chances for success in life. You cannot point to the failure of some parents to parent well as an argument against good parenting by both a mother and father. It is shifting the argument away from the point being made which is that when a mother and a father together consistently parent well, that situation is far better than any other contrived situation as far as the welfare of children is concerned.

You cannot use the fact that some parents are negligent or abusive as an argument against good parenting nor to support parenting by some other arrangement. In fact, if endorsing open parenting structures undermines the optimal situation, that becomes an argument for protecting the optimal situation in the face of impetuous change.

Or maybe you were unclear in stating your point. BTW you are actually the one diverting the point as I was talking about gay married couples being able to adopt not what was the best parental situation for a child. You may or may not be correct; however, a child being raised in foster care does not have a mother and a father raising them do they? They have a man and I woman, but not parents in the end. Do you even know anything about the foster care system?

Are you telling me that a child would be better off being raised in the foster care system with no family to call their own or by a committed gay couple with extended family. Gee wouldn’t be nice if everyone live in the “optimal situation” but unfortunately that is not how the world works.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Or maybe you were unclear in stating your point. BTW you are actually the one diverting the point as I was talking about gay married couples being able to adopt not what was the best parental situation for a child. You may or may not be correct; however, a child being raised in foster care does not have a mother and a father raising them do they? They have a man and I woman, but not parents in the end. Do you even know anything about the foster care system?

Are you telling me that a child would be better off being raised in the foster care system with no family to call their own or by a committed gay couple with extended family. Gee wouldn’t be nice if everyone live in the “optimal situation” but unfortunately that is not how the world works.

Speaking of diverting the point…

This thread is about “gay marriage.” It is not about fostering children or the foster care system.

Even if it were true that being raised by wolves is better than being raised in the foster care system, that still doesn’t amount to an argument for “gay marriage” nor for a redefinition of marriage, nor for letting wolves raise human young, for that matter. It is an argument, more likely, for reforming the foster care system or for working hard in support of marriage and family as foundations of society. It certainly isn’t an argument for “gay marriage.”

 

[shelby_sun]

Speaking of diverting the point…

This thread is about “gay marriage.” It is not about fostering children or the foster care system.

Even if it were true that being raised by wolves is better than being raised in the foster care system, that still doesn’t amount to an argument for “gay marriage” nor for a redefinition of marriage, nor for letting wolves raise human young, for that matter. It is an argument, more likely, for reforming the foster care system or for working hard in support of marriage and family as foundations of society. It certainly isn’t an argument for “gay marriage.”

I do not believe in gay marriage in the Church nor do I think the Church should ever change their position on this matter. I consider them “civil unions” under the law. There are many laws I don’t agree with, and many more I would fight before this one.

Yes the foster care system does need reforming and family as the foundation of society certainly needs support, but family means different things all over world among all the different cultures. It is always best to have every child in the best situation possible; however you are naive to think that is ever going to happen, so other options must be considered, so what are your answers. There will never be enough heterosexual couples to adopt all those abandon children.

I myself would never abandon my friendship with the two gay couple I know that are raising children in a very loving home. Nor would I preach to them the rules of the Church. They know the rules of the Church, their decisions are between themselves and God.

 

[JimG]

I do not believe in gay marriage in the Church nor do I think the Church should ever change their position on this matter. I consider them “civil unions” under the law. There are many laws I don’t agree with, and many more I would fight before this one.

Yes the foster care system does need reforming and family as the foundation of society certainly needs support, but family means different things all over world among all the different cultures. It is always best to have every child in the best situation possible; however you are naive to think that is ever going to happen, so other options must be considered, so what are your answers. There will never be enough heterosexual couples to adopt all those abandon children.

I myself would never abandon my friendship with the two gay couple I know that are raising children in a very loving home. Nor would I preach to them the rules of the Church. They know the rules of the Church, their decisions are between themselves and God.

The problem is, a gay union is an intrinsically disordered living arrangement, into which no child should be placed for care.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

And how would that serve as disproof that GOOD parenting by a mother and father is the optimal situation as far as the well-being and future of children is concerned? Yes, bad, negligent or abusive parenting by anyone is not conducive to the welfare of children, but how is that an argument against good parenting and what children need in their lives?

You also missed the point.

My point is that those are is no more representative of hetero marriages as the Australian link you quoted is of homo marriages.

(note, I’m using hetero and homo to refer to the sex of the participants in said marriages, not commenting on their sexuality).

I am even talking to whomever this applies. If the shoe fits. It would generally apply to anyone who claims the title of Catholic yet spreads heretical viewpoints in contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s one thing to spread false information out of innocent ignorance, but it’s a serious problem with knowing what one is saying is a violation of Church teachings yet that person keeps repeating the mantra over and over as if believing it will somehow, through some magical property, become a reality when in fact it never will, even if the entire world accepts it as such. Doing this, whether the person wants to acknowledge this fact or not, is a direct attack on the Church from inside her walls. This sort of intentional mutiny is an attempt to tear down the Church, even if the one doing this claims it is not. So, that’s who I am even talking to.

If you had been trying to fraternally correct someone you’re doing it wrong because they wouldn’t necessarily know it’s them that you are talking about.