Gay Marriage

[Peter_Plato]

However, I do not think that would be the end, the Christian message would continue in the other churches.

What exactly is that message, NekoNecro?

The more I read your posts the more I am convinced that you are an enemy of the Church who has found that the most effective way to drive Catholics away from the true Church is by an elaborate pretense: “I am one of you so therefore I am in a privileged position from which to see the truth.”

Personally, I see you in the role of a tempter - someone who has found an emotional weakness, an Achilles’ Heel, in most peoples’ thinking and moral character, and are using it to do great damage spiritually.

You spoke of your home parish being reduced to just a few and related that story with a kind of glee that bespoke your true feelings for the Church.

If you truly believed in the Real Presence and understood the nature of what that entails, you would not be driving others away from the true Church because, you ought to know, it is in that Presence that God resides and it is in consuming the Bread and Wine of that Presence that the Church remains the Body of Christ animated by His Spirit.

Christ’s words from the cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” are appropriate here. You who give evidence against Christ’s Body at the same time as purporting to be a friend. Betrayal is the word that comes to mind.

You know very well that Christ would not support tearing apart the institution and sacrament of marriage precisely because it is not merely an emotional reality, it is a deeply physical union of complementary bodies - a covenant where two become one flesh. Just as in consuming the physical reality of Christ’s Body and Blood, we become one flesh, one Body in Christ.

This is not merely an emotional union or an emotionally dependent union which you are striving to make it - it is Christ becoming incarnated in human beings through history and today. It is by his assurance that the Church lives today. Your polemical rhetoric speaks directly against Christ, the only hope mankind has.

You don’t seem to realize that the emotional dependency that drives individuals in modern western societies along with the unceasing mantra of personal license have the power to addict souls and will cause love in most hearts to grow cold. You are peddling a shallow emotive warm feeling as “love,” failing to realize that it isn’t real abiding love precisely because it detracts from self-giving, it is self absorbed love, endlessly narcissistic in nature. It is also the oldest formula for tempting the unwary away from their true good and from God.

What is so captivating about using the formula in any issue involving sex is that so much guilt exists in most people’s minds and hearts regarding their own failings that not only the emotive aspects can be played up, but these can be pitted against individual guilt to effectively shut down any reasoning within him/her. “Who are you to say anything?” Words like “homophobe” tend to stick precisely because most individuals are uncertain about their own sexuality because it is so all-encompassing and beyond their understanding. Guilt, fear of being shamed, and anxiety about their own standing as human beings will effectively silence opposition.

I find your methods quite distasteful. It would be a good idea for anyone reading your posts to prepare themselves by reading Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, lest they be taken in by your rhetoric and psychological ploys. Some readers are falling to your wiles, that is clear, but it is because your ploys, and not your arguments have been effective with them. They have, most certainly, been predisposed to allowing what you are saying to carry them away.

Be prepared, however, because you will be held accountable. That should make you a little more wary about what you add to this thread.

 

[NekoNecro]

What exactly is that message, NekoNecro?

What is it the priest commands us to do when we leave mass? Is it not to love and to serve one another?

Catholics tend to also forget the command to repent of ones sins, for the kingdom of God is near.(Mark 1:14-15). That would suggest to me that we are to get our morals and conduct into order before he returns as judge, because treating our fellow humans as lesser creatures and second class citizens is a most grievous sin against a being made in the image of God.

The more I read your posts the more I am convinced that you are an enemy of the Church who has found that the most effective way to drive Catholics away from the true Church is by an elaborate pretense: “I am one of you so therefore I am in a privileged position from which to see the truth.”

Please, do explain how you have come to this conclusion. If you would kindly turn you eyes to the top left of this box you shall find my religion box does not say “Catholic”, it says “Raised Catholic”. To me that makes it clear, I no longer am a practicing Catholic but “raised” is to inform the reader that I am more than familiar with the ways of the Catholic Church.

I have reaffirmed this a few times in this thread, I am not one of you but I know of your ways, therefor I am capable of making an unbiased critical oversight.

Personally, I see you in the role of a tempter - someone who has found an emotional weakness, an Achilles’ Heel, in most peoples’ thinking and moral character, and are using it to do great damage spiritually.

You pay me too great a compliment here Peter that I do not deserve, If I am that skilled a philosopher and apologist that I can turn peoples hearts and minds to a new way of thinking surely that is greater testament to the strength of my argument and the weakness of the defending one?

You spoke of your home parish being reduced to just a few and related that story with a kind of glee that bespoke your true feelings for the Church.

Glee? Do you think I enjoy my hometown being the center of scandal? Do you believe I like the fact that the school I attend once served as the priests personal harem? Are you honestly that sick, twisted and dark in your thoughts that I take any sort of pleasure in the death of my freinds?!

No Peter, I am not filled with “glee”. I am filled with despair and am desperate to make things right so this never repeats itself again.

If you truly believed in the Real Presence and understood the nature of what that entails, you would not be driving others away from the true Church because, you ought to know, it is in that Presence that God resides and it is in consuming the Bread and Wine of that Presence that the Church remains the Body of Christ animated by His Spirit.

By the same logic it is Christ that is responsible for the enslavement of Africans, the subjugation of women, the ravishing of children and the slaughter of heathens since by your standard it is Christ that is behind all the actions of the Church…I’ll stop, your argument is flawed.

Even the most foul priests have the power to consecrate the Eucharist in persona Christi, it doesn’t mean they are automatically nice people even if many are.

 

[NekoNecro]

Christ’s words from the cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” are appropriate here. You who give evidence against Christ’s Body at the same time as purporting to be a friend. Betrayal is the word that comes to mind.

I would rather be a betrayer than an unrepentant tyrant. Get down off your pulpit Peter since you so clearly lack Plato’s mastery of the employment of logic and accept the truth. If I had made a single claim in this thread that was false you would have proven it to be by now.

You know very well that Christ would not support tearing apart the institution and sacrament of marriage precisely because it is not merely an emotional reality, it is a deeply physical union of complementary bodies - a covenant where two become one flesh. Just as in consuming the physical reality of Christ’s Body and Blood, we become one flesh, one Body in Christ.

I am not suggesting tearing it apart, if you had been paying any attention to my words you will remember I said changing the sacrament of marriage is not my interest, I am far more interested with secular recognition.

In a perfect world though? Yes, I would like the sacrament of marriage extended because there is no logical argument for me to reject the idea. A homosexual union is hardly any less complimentary or fruitful than the union of a woman without a womb which we do not object to, and since we prize celibacy so highly it should be clear sex is not essential in the union of spouses.

I have also highlighted the destructive effect fighting against SSU and SSM (and other topics) has had on the wider church. You also accuse me of playing with peoples emotions? I have only responded to questions, I did not freely volunteer that information without being asked.

This is not merely an emotional union or an emotionally dependent union which you are striving to make it - it is Christ becoming incarnated in human beings through history and today. It is by his assurance that the Church lives today. Your polemical rhetoric speaks directly against Christ, the only hope mankind has.

If you’d ever picked up a bible at any point in your life you would know Christ himself never said a world about homosexuality. After all, this was the same logic that kept the slave trade in good favour with the Church for so many centuries.

Our strongest objection comes from St.Paul (who may I point out was not Christ) and it reflects a time and cultural climate very different from our own. We ignore many other prohibitions as proposed by Paul since they are now deemed to be immoral, I see this one as immoral too as do the majority of Catholics according to the Pew report.

You don’t seem to realize that the emotional dependency that drives individuals in modern western societies along with the unceasing mantra of personal license have the power to addict souls and will cause love in most hearts to grow cold. You are peddling a shallow emotive warm feeling as “love,” failing to realize that it isn’t real abiding love precisely because it detracts from self-giving, it is self absorbed love, endlessly narcissistic in nature. It is also the oldest formula for tempting the unwary away from their true good and from God.

“Love” as the sacrament promoted by the Catholic church is not agape or eros, indeed if you recall from earlier in this thread it was plainly stated not by me, but by Joive that love is not part of a marriage.

We left this archaic tribal standard many centuries ago in Europe because we finally understood the warmth that is essential in the spiritual and emotional development of two souls becoming one through marriage and the lives they share.

It is you who peddle a life devoid of love Peter, one led alone in the shallow cold comfort of following tradition. God is love, and if he truley does love his creation he would not expect or demand a life of misery from them. Repentance is a liberation, setting aside what is wrong freeing us to promote what is right and live it out by example. It would be patronizing to the sacrament for repenting of something that is not bad and I have illustrated several times in this thread alone, the Catholic Church has developed it’s understanding and redefined what is bad many times in light of new thinking higher standards of thinking and morality.

What is so captivating about using the formula in any issue involving sex is that so much guilt exists in most people’s minds and hearts regarding their own failings that not only the emotive aspects can be played up, but these can be pitted against individual guilt to effectively shut down any reasoning within him/her.

You are the only one concerned with sex here Peter, I have stated several times that sex is a wonderful feature, it is not the crux upon which a relationship lies. If that was a case, we’d be seeing elderly couples no longer capable of it routinely splitting up with one another to finish their lives alone.

 

[NekoNecro]

“Who are you to say anything?” Words like “homophobe” tend to stick precisely because most individuals are uncertain about their own sexuality because it is so all-encompassing and beyond their understanding. Guilt, fear of being shamed, and anxiety about their own standing as human beings will effectively silence opposition.

It is fear though, we fear that which we have always been taught to be evil and wrong, or simply “not done” in our society. It is this bigotry that forces people into silence, fear and forces them to hide themselves away to their own harm and destruction.

There is reason to be afraid of evil doers, but not the harmless as many LGBT are. They wish to love and be loved as all of humanity does, and we do a great disservice to prevent the flourishing of the most powerful and important emotion a human being is capable of.

Without a partner they can explore and share it most undoubtedly, there are even those like myself who have no desire to take a lover, because I am content as I am. I can see that this is not for everyone however, and I see a glow and warmth between happily married couples that is beautiful not only for them, but it radiates and brightens everyone else around them too. I would be a fool to not want to see more of this in the world.

I find your methods quite distasteful. It would be a good idea for anyone reading your posts to prepare themselves by reading Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, lest they be taken in by your rhetoric and psychological ploys. Some readers are falling to your wiles, that is clear, but it is because your ploys, and not your arguments have been effective with them. They have, most certainly, been predisposed to allowing what you are saying to carry them away.

But you no less aknowledge my message is working and it has enough merit that it is causing people to reconsider their opinions. Wonderful! This is the only way any of us can develop our minds, indeed our very souls and come closer to what is right and good. Fine rhetoric has it’s limits peter, I could have the tongue of Cicero but it would be useless to me if I was trying to convince people that the world was flat and rode on the back of a turtle.

If people agree with my argument, it is because it is the one with the most merit. We both have the same resources at our disposal Peter, the whole wealth of information of the internet is at your disposal! But even still…You can’t find anything to prove me wrong.

That means there is only one conclusion, I am right.

Be prepared, however, because you will be held accountable. That should make you a little more wary about what you add to this thread.

I know this very well, I would rather be able to say on the day of my judgement that I stood and spoke for what was just than cowered and remained silent while those around me suffered needlessly.

This might just be one internet forum, but I intend to take every opportunity to vouch for what is good. And until you can prove to me I am wrong, I will continue to promote what I believe to be good.

 

[shelby_sun]

To Peter Plato, NekoNecro is not changing the minds of anyone, some of came into this post before he did try to the same thing, he just is so much better at it. He is certainly not changing your mind.

If we can not examine and question the Church then we are to be brainwashed. You make it sound like a cult that all are to come in listen, believe, and spit back out everything they have just heard with asking why.

This forum if you read top the top left hand corner is “to explain and defend the faith” which you are doing and working very hard at it, but you have to have some thing to defend or else you wouldn’t have anything to say or teach would you?

You are not going to convince everyone, but you should know you have done your best and done well by the Church. You should no longer worry of those of us you cannot convince and let God do what he thinks is best. I know he wants us to help those who are weak and bullied and I think that is what NekoNecro is doing? Do you know how many gay people have killed themselves over the years? It is painful. Many who never even were sexually active in their lives, but were shunned by their own families, church, friends.

Are you as hard on those you commit premarital sex, of which there are many,many more. In fact, the majority of Catholic getting married today have had sex before marriage with more than one person. I know because I have had sex with only two people in my life and people think I am rare. There may just not be that many Catholics going to heaven from the sound of it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have reaffirmed this a few times in this thread, I am not one of you but I know of your ways, therefor I am capable of making an unbiased critical oversight.

Another non sequitur - just as many of your claims about the Church have been.

Perhaps “therefor” was a Freudian slip, you couldn’t quite sincerely make the statement out to be a logical claim, because you knew it wasn’t.

 

[NekoNecro]

Another non sequitur - just as many of your claims about the Church have been.

Perhaps “therefor” was a Freudian slip, you couldn’t quite sincerely make the statement out to be a logical claim, because you knew it wasn’t.

I don’t think you quite understand what those words mean Peter, it is a logical conclusion.

I do not claim to be a practicing Catholic, therefore I have no motivation to view history with rose tinted spectacles that cause me to try and unreasonably stretch an argument to support the Catholic Church. I can merely call it as I see it with no bias for or against.

Because I know of your ways and have studied Catholicism to a considerable extent, I can speak with the full knowledge required to support and explain evidence to support my assessment.I am privileged in that I can see and explain from both the etic and emic perspectives.

No, therefor was merley me leading onto my valid conclusion. Would you expect a practicing Mormon to write anything that displays his church in less than glowing terms? No, he would try and make it look pretty and paint over some of the LDS’s less glamerous moments.

I’m not doing that, I’m just stating cold hard facts. If they were not facts, you would have proven them false with evidence.

Now that we’ve cleared that up, let me ask again. Please present me with your evidence and argument as to why my proposals are mistaken. It has been a few days now and I am still waiting to be enlightened with your dazzling argument to prove my logic to be erroneous.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is it the priest commands us to do when we leave mass? Is it not to love and to serve one another?

Could you please reconcile the above with this…

I have reaffirmed this a few times in this thread, **I am not one of you ** but I know of your ways, therefor I am capable of making an unbiased critical oversight.

You consider yourself “one of us” but then deny it - and all in the same post, yet.

Do you now see why I am rather skeptical of your rather ‘fluid’ and dubious position vis a vis the Church?

You pay me too great a compliment here Peter that I do not deserve, If I am that skilled a philosopher and apologist that I can turn peoples hearts and minds to a new way of thinking surely that is greater testament to the strength of my argument and the weakness of the defending one?

No actually, I am more concerned about the state of rational thought and the capacity for discernment among the many Catholics in your sphere of influence.

It is the same type of influence that persuaded the mobs to shout “Crucify him!” even as the Truth stood before them.

My problem and perhaps yours, as well, is that there is some uncertainty as to the sincerity of your motives. Human nature is very prone to beguilement and flattery regarding moral uprightness.

It is not clear to me whether you don’t understand human nature at all or you do very well AND you know how to pander to psychological weakness. I suspect it has been in giving into your own weaknesses and vulnerabilities that you have gained expertise in the area of influencing the vulnerable. I would suggest you take a second look at your own formation.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

**After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. ** (John 6)

Why did many in your parish leave the Church if they truly believed Jesus’ words about eating his body and drinking his blood? They obviously didn’t believe.

Neither do you believe that “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail,” otherwise you would not spend so much time and effort being an apologist for the flesh.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now that we’ve cleared that up, let me ask again. Please present me with your evidence and argument as to why my proposals are mistaken. It has been a few days now and I am still waiting to be enlightened with your dazzling argument to prove my logic to be erroneous.

We haven’t “cleared” anything up.

I showed your logic to be erroneous in post 256. You claimed Augustine was the first to read Genesis allegorically. I posted a list of Church Fathers and Christians who predated Augustine to prove you quite incorrect. Your answer was a rather feeble…

I’ve done some further reading and it seems I was wrong about Augustine however, he too was for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

This is truly bizarre. Not only did you ignore the examples of the writers, AND the explanation of their thinking that I summarized, but then you went on to make the unsubstantiated claim based upon nothing but your “further reading” that Augustine, too, was a literalist.

What, precisely, did you read that could possibly counter his very clear explanation in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis?

1. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light” in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides.

1. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Why not, at least, come clean on this before we attempt to argue about other issues?

My method is to base the value of my spending time and effort attempting to discuss an issue on whether the interlocutor is at least capable of rational persuasion. If their ploy is to merely dodge and evade direct evidence, then it is clearly not worth my time engaging them.

So here is the challenge to you:

Give proof that you are truly unbiased and reasonable by making an effort to support your rather strange contention about Augustine and when allegorical interpretations of Genesis began in history.

If you are unable to do this, then concede that you might be - as difficult as it is for you to admit - wrong about the point.

I am quite willing to take on any of your further points, but you need to show it is worth my effort. I find it vexing and tiresome to chase after the wind.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If I had made a single claim in this thread that was false you would have proven it to be by now.

See my previous post.

My ability to disprove any of your claims is not logically equivalent to the capacity to prove it to your liking.

What it would take to convince YOU need not be what is required to prove a claim FALSE.

That was entirely the point of my previous post.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ah, then might I assume you are Bisexual? That explains why it didn’t do you any lasting harm.

I am sure your attraction to men marks you out from other practicing Catholics, but because you are also attracted to women since you’ve taken one in marriage you can otherwise live a fairly normal life.

“Pure” Homosexuals (if that’s even a term, ones who feel no attraction for the opposite sex whatsoever) do not have this luxury. They are sentenced to a life of celibacy, and are also barred from both the priesthood and a number of religious orders since BenedictsXVI’s recommendations on the subject.

From what I gather, most gay people do experience some attraction to the opposite sex. They would say that their attraction to the same sex is stronger and more insistent. That’s the same for me. My SSA is more insistent than my OSA. But I’m free to marry, and I’ve experienced a great deal of blessing from my marriage.

As for Benedict’s decree, I don’t agree with it. I understand why he did it, but I think – as Andrew Sullivan has noted – that it treats gay priests as somehow constitutionally incapable of celibacy, which is offensive and unhelpful. Pope Francis’s remarks last year, about gay priests, were much more dignifying to them.

Celibacy might or might not be a gift, being entirely asexual (no attraction whatsoever to anyone) myself I can’t really comprehend the desire not to be), but I can see clearly enough it is not for everyone.

You talk as if God is powerless. As if God allows someone to have SSA, but denies them the gift of celibacy or chastity in marriage. That would be an awfully lazy God.

We can say they can take part in the rest of normal life but let’s not kid ourselves, I’ve seen for myself how someone with SSA sticks out (not just my friend, I’ve seen three others at university try the Catholics Church’s Courage apostolate out, needless to say they’ve all stopped practicing, even the two without partners). They cannot retain good female freindships easily, because that is unseemly but by the same hand they can’t really have good male ones either, due to the “occasion of sin” and the homophobia abundant in parish life.

Absolutely, that’s wrong! But once again, none of it is implied by Church teaching. Gay people need close friends of the same sex, and we can’t allow worries about the occasion of sin to stand in the way of that. So I think your friends have been wronged – but by people, not by doctrine!

It is clear to me, and to 54% of America’s practicing Catholics (features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/) that homosexual marriage has many merits making it worthy of adoption as a custom

Theology by vote?

We don’t have a right clearly, if we did people wouldn’t die. To have both biological parents is an ideal situation, but one we just aren’t all able to have.

That’s not what it means to have a right. (I encourage you to study the literature on human rights, in this respect). Rights are often denied or violated, but the fact that they are rights makes it so that the ones denied their rights have a valid claim to the thing they have been denied. If a girl who grew up with two dads were to ask one of her dads for a mom, that girl would be making a valid request. If a boy who grew up with a single mom were to ask his mom for a dad, that boy would be making a valid request.

In the real world, it isn’t always possible to respond to such claims/requests perfectly, but we have a duty to do everything we can to do so.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would assert the right children have a right to a loving family to take care of them, something adoptive parents of either gender would provide. Since many gay couples cannot produce children (for obvious reasons) many of them will be more inclined to adopt and reduce the number of children in orphanages. After all, if there were enough heterosexual parents qualified to the task there wouldn’t be any orphanages with children in!

A couple things: in the US, we don’t have orphanages. But moreover, it’s very rare for gay couples to adopt, partially because their options are restricted, but also because people naturally want a genetic connection to their children. To be clear, is your position that gay couples should be able to adopt, but not conceive otherwise?

If you think that they should be allowed other forms of conception (insemination, surrogacy, IVF), then in essence you are saying that certain parents should intentionally bring children into the world in a situation that denies them something you admit to be good for them – a parent of both sexes. (I am consistent here, by the way: I don’t think single mothers should ever be allowed to use IVF, for example).

No, I think that is a perfect comparison. What I was objecting was you comparing a consensual relationship to a violent crime, it enters the realm of such a tedious comparison that it appears absurd.

As I said, I was not comparing the two. I was making a point about the legalization of actions. Legalizing actions reduces associated non-intrinsic harms of these actions, regardless of whether these actions are good or bad. So you cannot prove that gay marriage is a good thing by saying it reduces suicides.

That said, I’m under no illusion that if her engaged-to-be-married lover asked her never to speak to me again she would drop me like a ton of bricks. There are some things you only do for a lover, and that trumps friendship of any kind.

If my wife demanded I drop my best friend, we would have a serious conflict on our hands. I would certainly not drop him. When you get married, you promise faithfulness, not insanity.

A formal vow without legal recognition is rather like a sweet wrapper with no candy inside. Pointless and just a bit of show with no actual substance.

A marriage without fecundity is not entirely dissimilar, from my perspective. (Though if what gay couples really want is to raise *adoptive *children, I would be open to considering them “open to life”).

The UK goes a few steps further when it comes to matters such as IVF babies and partner adoption (which is not permitted here, and I’m not so supportive of for obvious reasons), but we aknowledge the importance a parent/child has for the healthy personal development for individuals and families and wider society.

What is partner adoption, and why are you against it?

The Catholic Church in UK/France along with a few other religions is screaming like a demented drug fulled banshee to have it banned again, forget peaceful protest some of the public announcements and demonstrations against are more reminicent of a Nazi rally, only with a tiny number attending. We’re all getting a little bit annoyed with the public proclamations of gays being demonic

I can’t speak to the situation in France and elsewhere, only the US.

I hadn’t heard such bad things about the demonstrations, though. What did these people do, so that we ought to compare them to Nazis?

I would be interested what you define as a theological benefit, because that appears to be subjective to individual theologians. My priority is promoting a stable environment that fosters compassion, ethics and love. If we are speaking purely for benefits to the church it will do wonders to stop the faithful leaving in droves, surely that must be a benefit for their souls no?

I am really puzzled here, that you think that theology is about “benefiting the Church”. Theology is about Truth. The truth about our bodies, the truth about sin, the truth about grace, the truth about God. If you think that we can change these truths in order to foster compassion (apparently compassion to adults, not children) or to benefit the Church, you are wrong.

It is good for the body of the church because it shows it is not totally detached from reality and will do much to stem the flow of Athiesm and Agnosticism being fostered by the current stance.

You’re right that we could stem the tide of atheism if we changed theology to conform to the values of atheists and agnostics. But we would be replacing a demanding God with a pushover God, who simply rubber-stamps our desires. Far better to be an atheist who rejects the demanding God to His face, than to be a “Catholic” who embraces a pushover divinity!

I think there’s too much harm being done that to not make it legal would be a great misfortune in itself, the fact that it comes with many benefits is simply a wonderful addition in itself.

What harm is being done?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

May I just point out all of them had some variation of homosexual union ceremony?

You can tell me it, if it’s true. But I’m not sure why it matters. Once again, ethics is not majority rule.

asiasociety.org/women-southeast-asia. I’ve got others but this was the first pop-up on google.

As one scholar to another, you can’t get by with sources like that. It is not scholarly nor peer-reviewed, and it doesn’t even support the claim that you’re making, since it only refers to one ancient society. Moreover, it contradicts what you’ve said about Judaism being the source of patriarchy.

I believe Dinarchus also wrote about it, albit his description wasn’t quite so vivid and descriptive as Plutach. He mentions it as a feature of society and refers to several male couples in the passive using adjectives only appropriate to describe spouses.

There must be 1,500,000 ancient references to male/female marriages, but only these two (so-far-questionable) references to ancient male/male marriages? And you expect me to believe it was common?

Yes it does, Right from the Big man at the top himself. wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/pope-…nst-it-boldly/

Nowhere in that passage does the pope call gay people child abusers.

Uh…Considering your views have to be in perfect line and submisssion to the Catholic Church to partake in Christs presence in the Eucharist…That is exactly what it demands, not asks for.

Where did you get this idea? You have to have to be free of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist, but last time I checked, lacking perfect agreement with the Church is not a mortal sin. There may be some requirements about submission, but I hope you realize that agreement is a different thing than submission.

Moreover, I don’t see people often stopped from receiving the Eucharist. If you have a clear conscience, are free from mortal sin, and want to receive, I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I know that some bishops have said that people who support gay marriage can’t receive the Eucharist, but I think these bishops are out of line.

 

[Peter_Plato]

By the same logic it is Christ that is responsible for the enslavement of Africans, the subjugation of women, the ravishing of children and the slaughter of heathens since by your standard it is Christ that is behind all the actions of the Church…I’ll stop, your argument is flawed.

Even the most foul priests have the power to consecrate the Eucharist in persona Christi, it doesn’t mean they are automatically nice people even if many are.

Matthew 13:24-30
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat

Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matt 13:24-30)

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You seem to be taken by the bombast, the hubris of your own postings. Just pointing out a few things:

…

Why is it regrettable? Is it regrettable that I am left handed? Despite that being natural had I been born fifty years earlier it would have been perceived by my teachers as a sign of Satan and I would have been forced to right with my right hand, as indeed one of my parents were.

The Catholic Church has never had a teaching that left handedness was or is immoral. Homosexual sex is immoral and Satan successfully sold to you the Big Lie of gay “marriage.”

As for Church stance on slavery, which you raised elsewhere, read this piece on The Catholic Church and Slavery.

If the world was all rainbows and happy care bears though? Yeah, I’d be happy to see this. **Not because I’m gay, just because for me this would be the ultimate symbol of how far we’ve come and that homosexuals in the laity can experience the joys most heterosexuals do. **

Again, this is not my priority however. I’d rather deal with the faster-moving secular barriers first than the ancient machinations of an institution that in all truth really doesn’t have that much of an influence on wider society aside from it’s immense wealth it can use to lobby, pressurize and influence goverment.

It is not far fetched that this is your priority, your rationalization that you are so focused on undermining the Church, insisting that she change the doctrine on the sinfulness of active homosexuality and embrace of the secular demand for pretend marriage.

Just as the singular motive that drove John Boswell’s and John McNeill’s life work, notably in the area of revising scripture and calling good what is evil. They chose their pet sin, their form of idolatry, over the Real Presence, just like what you are giving up. Clinging to the name Catholic at the same time making it a mission to destroy Church authority.

…
Without a partner they can explore and share it most undoubtedly, there are even those like myself who have no desire to take a lover, because I am content as I am. I can see that this is not for everyone however, and I see a glow and warmth between happily married couples that is beautiful not only for them, but it radiates and brightens everyone else around them too. I would be a fool to not want to see more of this in the world.

…

Content as you are and no desire at this time to take a lover of the same sex? Is this thread your test balloon before you do, now feeling expansive with some affirming your arguments, those that already have been seduced? The glow and warmth of same sex “married” love is seductive, isn’t it?

… I would rather be able to say on the day of my judgement that I stood and spoke for what was just than cowered and remained silent while those around me suffered needlessly.

This might just be one internet forum, but I intend to take every opportunity to vouch for what is good. And until you can prove to me I am wrong, I will continue to promote what I believe to be good.

Well, NN, that sounds like your justification, to join the party, and to take more with you. You have all the answers and know everything there is to know, including vincible ignorance!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think you quite understand what those words mean Peter, it is a logical conclusion.

I do not claim to be a practicing Catholic, therefore I have no motivation to view history with rose tinted spectacles that cause me to try and unreasonably stretch an argument to support the Catholic Church. I can merely call it as I see it with no bias for or against.

Your “logic” is quite tenuous for a number of reasons.

First, there is no logical relationship between being Catholic and viewing history with rose tinted glasses. In fact, by your very logic, being a disgruntled Catholic would logically make YOU incapable of viewing Catholicism without your own polarizing lenses.

Your assumption is that all Catholics are Catholic because of some bias or other and unbiased individuals would simply not be so “predisposed” by their biases. That, in itself, would seem to be an assumption riddled with bias on your part.

There may be Catholics who view history through rose tinted glasses just as there may be anti-Catholics that do. By the same token, there may be Catholics with very clear and unbiased views of history, as there might be atheists, agnostics and even - perish the thought - historians who do.

The problem with your position is that if Catholicism is true then you have ruled out the possibility a priori of a truth seeker coming to Catholicism except by a prejudiced or biased motive. All Catholics, by your view, must be, in principle, biased by the very fact that they have accepted Catholicism.

Because I know of your ways and have studied Catholicism to a considerable extent, I can speak with the full knowledge required to support and explain evidence to support my assessment.I am privileged in that I can see and explain from both the etic and emic perspectives.

Again, a specious argument. It is quite possible to spend a lifetime studying a subject under the influence of indelible psychological blocks where key elements and crucial understandings are simply missed or overlooked because of those psychological blinkers.
There is no logical connection between time or effort in pursuit of truth and the actual finding of the truth. Some key components are predisposition towards the truth, openness to the truth and sincerity of intention.

The fact that you provide anthropological memes to describe your “extensive” study is telling.

No, therefor was merley me leading onto my valid conclusion. Would you expect a practicing Mormon to write anything that displays his church in less than glowing terms? No, he would try and make it look pretty and paint over some of the LDS’s less glamerous moments.

Again there is no logical relationship between being a practitioner of any faith and the propensity of that individual to gloss over error. It may be true that practicing Mormons must come to terms with historical oddities and unsubstantiated claims, but there have been many, many Catholics in history who have dealt with and have overcome what are far from insurmountable difficulties regarding Catholicism - all with far greater rigor and more careful logic than you have demonstrated.

I’m not doing that, I’m just stating cold hard facts. If they were not facts, you would have proven them false with evidence.

The problem here is that you haven’t provided “cold hard facts” what you have provided are impressions, innuendo and contentious claims that are, in themselves, difficult to track down because you have provided no source material.

Which takes me back to your claim about Augustine being a literalist regarding Genesis.

Another “cold hard fact” I take it?

I see we disagree also about what constitutes a “cold hard fact.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Peter and Neko,

I think you both should take a deep breath and consider your goals.

I’ll just leave it there.

Peace,
Prodigal

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter and Neko,

I think you both should take a deep breath and consider your goals.

I’ll just leave it there.

Peace,
Prodigal

Breath taken and goals being pondered.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Breath taken and goals being pondered.

Cool. Your signature, by the way, always makes me smile and gets a really good song stuck in my head.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

I know that some bishops have said that people who support gay marriage can’t receive the Eucharist, but I think these bishops are out of line.

PS, there are good arguments and positions from you in this thread, but, this is a bone I respectfully pick with you. I do not think this is helpful in your evangelization objective. One foot is in the door, the other not.

As Bishop Paprocki admonished, there are no two Catholic views on gay marriage. One is authentic Catholic, the other is dissenting.

Further, a Catholic cannot say he believes the Church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and then reject what the Church teaches, as Archbishop Vigneron expounded here.