Gay Marriage

[St_Francis]

Hi,

It seems to me the issue is this. The Catholic Church says that you cannot be actively gay, nor transgendered like I am. That seems to be the issue.

Science seems to say being gay is normal and being transgendered is also normal.

Thus to keep us out of the fight, the issues are now between the church and science.

Last year Medicare reviewed it’s decisons about my condition. They decided to change, as thier information was old and incomplete. They now say there is only one treatment for the condition they will now cover, and that treatment works. I am 67 now. The Government tells me, there is only one thing works for that. It is to transition.

In Romans 13 verses 1-5, it says to me, the church is to follow the governments laws. It also says I am to follow the governments laws. Wow!

This fight is between them now, as God is telling me there, I must follow the Government laws also.

LOVE and love,
…Katerina.,

Medicare in November of 2013, was asked to review it’s policies for my condition. I am transgendered. They did. I went to the doctor in roughly May of 2014. The first one required is for a full, in my case Psychiatric exam. The resuts were many. In short though, I am amazingly free of all mental pathologies, and and very Gender Dysphoric. Amazingly though, I presented my entire history to them. I was very surprised at some of their statements. I was also pleased with their proofs of their words, through corroborations.

The next step was to go to a medical doctor. I did that. They prescribed hormones, for me. I have asked, and it seems somehow hormones relieve Gender Dysphoria rather quickly, and the doctor said no one knows why.
The government is not only paying their share, but so am I, and I am following their rules on how to handle Gender Dysphoria.
LOVE and love,
…Katerina.,

What the Church currently says about transgenderism is that people are the sex they are born as, barring some physical abnormality, and that surgery maybe undertaken only for a proportionate reason. Thus, if someone is in sufficient distress, surgery could be considered. Right now, it seems the Church has not taken a position because so little is truly known about this condition.

What the law says is that *if *someone *chooses *to have their gender dysphoria treated under Medicare, the *only *treatment *they *will pay for is transitioning. The law does not mandate that someone be treated; the law does not mandate that someone receive treatment through Medicare. So any transgender person covered by Medicare who decided against treatment would *not *be violating the law.

And lastly, earthly authorities cannot (morally) make a law which is against the moral law. Were they to do so, we would actually be required to break that law. This is where the early Christian martyrs came from, remember?

 

[katerinah1947]

What the Church currently says about transgenderism is that people are the sex they are born as, barring some physical abnormality, and that surgery maybe undertaken only for a proportionate reason. Thus, if someone is in sufficient distress, surgery could be considered. Right now, it seems the Church has not taken a position because so little is truly known about this condition.

What the law says is that *if *someone *chooses *to have their gender dysphoria treated under Medicare, the *only *treatment *they *will pay for is transitioning. The law does not mandate that someone be treated; the law does not mandate that someone receive treatment through Medicare. So any transgender person covered by Medicare who decided against treatment would *not *be violating the law.

And lastly, earthly authorities cannot (morally) make a law which is against the moral law. Were they to do so, we would actually be required to break that law. This is where the early Christian martyrs came from, remember?

Okay. And yes, there is too little known about this condition. The last 50 yearrs of research point to one conclusion, but I like all of us in the field of science realize that new, science always has a maturing period, before it either stands forever, or is improved or enhanced, like Newtons laws, which were later enhanced for the effects happening at near light speed velocities.

Yet as far as I knew, not know anymore, but knew, my surgery which is paid for by Medicare now, since May or so of 2014, and my horomones for maintenance, also paid for by the government, is seen by church members as an extreme violation of the church’s rules, and so I do not go to Communion as I don’t anyone who knows (and they all do at my church as that is a typical Catholic thing, for me to be open and honest always), to be mislead by what might be perceived by them as me being unworthy confessionally, to receive Communion.
The law to use your words, yes does not mandate surgery. Being transgendered is not a one size fits all condtion, just like everything else in this world. For me, for me, for me, their solution is surgery and hormones, it is because of my type of transgenderism which is dysphoric, not only in my internal gender, but in some things on my body. I am gender dysphoric there also.
My rules are to do nothing if possible. Then to do as little as possible, to just try and get through this life, with me being the way I am. For me, the minimum is surgery and hormones. I may do nothing else. Hopefully that is enough. I am, more than a year later, much more pleased with certain aspects of my life, so it appears the present understanding of my condition by Medicare is correct.

Yes, on your other point, I never said nor implied, nor did you say, that I was breaking a moral law, nor were they. I cannot break a moral law, if I am strong engough. I cannot and will not, as much as I can.

I do remember much and love the earthly Christian martyrs. I know what we learned from them. It is better to die, than to break a law of God. Especially when God wants us to learn, His Ways from them, he usually gives the church miracles so they can know a person is special to God, then looking into their lives, we learn something about God, something He wants us to know and do. The early martyrs said to me(from thier ways): It is better to die, and make God happy, than to live, and make God hurt.

LOVE and love,
…Katerina.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back onto the boards… Not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, just making light on the fact this thread keeps coming back…

I am tired of this subject also.

I suggest that all non-Catholics participating in this thread view “Thread Starters” at the top of the Social Justice page and read the “Church’s teachings on same sex issues.” It is all spelled out clearly and concisely with references and documentation.

In short, you will find that the Catholic Church teaches that** marriage is between one man and one woman.** Therefore the terms “gay marriage” or “same sex marriage” should not appear on a Catholic Forum because there is no such thing.

There exists a small, vocal minority who want their same sex relationships to be legally recognized and treated as a marriage. This has nothing to do with "rights’ or discrimination. The reason for this action to grant acceptance to their their abnormal sexual behavior.

If this discussion is to continue, I suggest that Catholics refrain from using or recognizing the terms “gay marriage” or even “same sex marriage”. The subject of this thread is nothing more than an “unnatural, deviant (in that it deviates from the normal) relationship”.

 

[Zachary]

Science seems to say being gay is normal and being transgendered is also normal.

Thus to keep us out of the fight, the issues are now between the church and science.

There are many many many naturally occurring things that we all know are not good for the human race.

I think people like to play word. Normal doesn’t necessarily mean “not unusual” or “acceptable” or a hundred other things it would imply in the context of “gay is normal.” I think that in this context, it really means “gay is acceptable” but at somewhere between a mere 2-3% of the population, it’s not exactly a normal state.

But is looks good on a poster and on facebook memes, so, have at 'er!

 

[SuperLuigi]

Zoltan Cobalt;12802822]

I am tired of this subject also.

I suggest that all non-Catholics participating in this thread view “Thread Starters” at the top of the Social Justice page and read the “Church’s teachings on same sex issues.” It is all spelled out clearly and concisely with references and documentation.

In short, you will find that the Catholic Church teaches that** marriage is between one man and one woman.** Therefore the terms “gay marriage” or “same sex marriage” should not appear on a Catholic Forum because there is no such thing.

There exists a small, vocal minority who want their same sex relationships to be legally recognized and treated as a marriage. This has nothing to do with "rights’ or discrimination. The reason for this action to grant acceptance to their their abnormal sexual behavior.

If this discussion is to continue, I suggest that Catholics refrain from using or recognizing the terms “gay marriage” or even “same sex marriage”. The subject of this thread is nothing more than an “unnatural, deviant (in that it deviates from the normal) relationship”.

We need to have a frame of reference so people know what we are talking about. There’s too many people on-line who use ambiguity to justify selfishness and sin.

Using terms like deviant ect. can actually offend members of the GLBTQ community on here, and some of them have confided on here that they follow Catholic teaching on their sexuality, not what society expects.

In fact, I can promise you the most belligerent, angry and loud voices on the issues are from straights.

I am not saying you don’t have a point, but how else should we refer to it?

 

[benotagoat]

We need to have a frame of reference so people know what we are talking about. There’s too many people on-line who use ambiguity to justify selfishness and sin.

Using terms like deviant ect. can actually offend members of the GLBTQ community on here, and some of them have confided on here that they follow Catholic teaching on their sexuality, not what society expects.

In fact, I can promise you the most belligerent, angry and loud voices on the issues are from straights.

I am not saying you don’t have a point, but how else should we refer to it?

We should call it , SAME SEX MIRAGE .

 

[benotagoat]

The Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it also states that if a woman is raped, and she doesn’t marry her rapist, she is to be stoned to death. The Bible also states that we shouldn’t wear clothes of mixed fabrics, eat certain seafoods, shave our beards/cut our hair, and sacrifice animals. We no longer do any of these things, because they are old Testament law… so why don’t we allow gay marriage? It makes sense that marriage was to only be between a man and a woman thousands of years ago, when reproduction of humans was key; it was for survival. But so was the banning of eating certain seafoods - eating them could result in food poisoning and death. Now, we know how to better clean those animals, which is why we eat them… And now, we have more than enough people on Earth, so why can’t the Catholic Church recognize love as love, regardless of gender?

You could argue that marriage should only be between man and woman because they must reproduce in order to raise more Catholics, but personally I think that God would be more pleased by seeing the expression of love among humans.

It was the O.T. that said raped women should have to marry their rapists ,but since Jesus says nothing on this but was against hypocrites ,pharisees and the letter of the law ,stressing more the ‘spirit’ of the law ,I say it is the girl or womans decision.

I would like to ask you if your teenage daugher was violently raped and felt she could not possible tolerate going through with the pregnancy ,would you force her to ?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We need to have a frame of reference so people know what we are talking about. There’s too many people on-line who use ambiguity to justify selfishness and sin.

Using terms like deviant ect. can actually offend members of the GLBTQ community on here, and some of them have confided on here that they follow Catholic teaching on their sexuality, not what society expects.

In fact, I can promise you the most belligerent, angry and loud voices on the issues are from straights.

I am not saying you don’t have a point, but how else should we refer to it?

Sorry, Luigi, I am not a “soft soap” kind of guy. Words mean things and I tend to use them accordingly. A term like “deviant” (as in deviates from the normal) may offend some people but it might prod others into reconsidering their sexual choice.

In other posts I have always expressed respect and admiration of those who follow Catholic teaching on their sexuality, However…I am offended by those who post arguments in favor of homosexuality here on a Catholic forum.

So how do we refer to it?

Simple…“gay” marriage refers to a “marriage” of people of the same sex. Since the Catholic Church defines marriage as between one man and one woman…“gay” marriage is inconceivable. Using the word marriage to describe a same sex relationship is offensive to Catholics and courteous posters avoid such terms out of respect for a religion.

I suggest calling a same sex relationship a “Rainbow Connection” or “Gay Union” or whatever…it is not a marriage.

 

[Midwest88]

I suggest calling a same sex relationship a “Rainbow Connection” or “Gay Union” or whatever…it is not a marriage.

Rainbow Connection - Will there be a unicorn and a leprechaun with pot of gold at the end? If not, sounds like a futuristic highway -

http://gamesretrospect.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Mario-Kart-DS-Rainbow-Road.jpg

Gay Union - Union Pacific?

 

[Midwest88]

We should call it , SAME SEX MIRAGE .

Feels like I’m in a desert, so parched, legs feel like blocks of lead … Is that a an oasis in the distance?

 

[kanrok]

The Catholic Church - the Church that Christ established when he died on the cross - offers its adherents one thing: the potential for eternal life. We can either follow the dictates of the Church or choose not to. We all have the capability of being saints. The Church’s doctrine on marriage will not, should not and cannot change. The sooner those who question it learn, understand and appreciate that it will not change, the better it will be for all concerned.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The Catholic Church - the Church that Christ established when he died on the cross - offers its adherents one thing: the potential for eternal life. We can either follow the dictates of the Church or choose not to. We all have the capability of being saints. The Church’s doctrine on marriage will not, should not and cannot change. The sooner those who question it learn, understand and appreciate that it will not change, the better it will be for all concerned.

This statement by Kanrok should be post #2 on any new thread about homosexuality and/or the redefinition of marriage. This should slow down the “never ending debate”.

 

[kozlosap]

This statement by Kanrok should be post #2 on any new thread about homosexuality and/or the redefinition of marriage. This should slow down the “never ending debate”.

I was under the impression that on all of these threads concerning gay marriage the discussion was about civil unions. In the several years that I’ve been reading CAF, I cannot remember one instance where a poster thought that the Church would perform sacramental marriages not in accordance with the CCC. This debate about civil unions will be moot in June and hopefully we all can move on to new subjects instead of rehashing the same old one ad nauseum.

 

[Rau]

I was under the impression that on all of these threads concerning gay marriage the discussion was about civil unions. In the several years that I’ve been reading CAF, I cannot remember one instance where a poster thought that the Church would perform sacramental marriages not in accordance with the CCC. This debate about civil unions will be moot in June and hopefully we all can move on to new subjects instead of rehashing the same old one ad nauseum.

A civil union (as opposed to a civilly conducted marriage) is truly what we, the society, define it to be.

Most of us understand marriage to be something more fundamental, more restrictive, on account of man’s nature.

 

[kanrok]

I was under the impression that on all of these threads concerning gay marriage the discussion was about civil unions. In the several years that I’ve been reading CAF, I cannot remember one instance where a poster thought that the Church would perform sacramental marriages not in accordance with the CCC. This debate about civil unions will be moot in June and hopefully we all can move on to new subjects instead of rehashing the same old one ad nauseum.

Go back and read the first post in this thread.

 

[Nelka]

The Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it also states that if a woman is raped, and she doesn’t marry her rapist, she is to be stoned to death.

The word is seduce not rape, it only appears as rape in Protestant bibles.

In other words if a couple have sex they are to be married, seems fair to me.