A
Aleksa
Guest
We didn’t live with him, but we spent the summers with him and called a lot. I’m pretty close to my dad now. There’s no hard feelings in the family about him. We’re probably lucky in that respect.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Some accuse the Church of being anti-homosexual for this reason. Why is the Church lobbying so strongly against gay marriage while it is not lobbying equally strongly against legal fornication. I suspect there are probably more people legally fornicating than there are homosexuals.
Is the church content to appear to ignore fornication? At the very least it offers an argument to the Church’s opponents.
rossum
J
JaredM
Guest
Because gay marriage is the new thing! Fornication is sooooooooo 1960s.
J
JustinH
Guest
Well, this thread is about civil unions, and not about the sacrament of marriage. It doesn’t concern the Church, which should focus on getting its own house in order first, in my opinion. There is plenty to work on there, before it concerns itself with the secular affairs of those outside the Church.
The latest example to make the news (December 2010) was Pope Benedict’s refusal to allow Vatican officials to cooperate with investigations by the Irish Commission into the sexual molestation of children by priests.
Until the Church assumes a position of moral leadership in such a clear cut case, rather than worrying more about its own purse and its own reputation (at the expense of the victims), then it has no place in society as a moral authority on the topic of sexual conduct.
Surely nobody, Catholic or otherwise, could reasonably disagree with this view that the role of the Church should be to uncover the truth, and to make amends to the victims, rather than to try to avoid responsibility and to obstruct justice, and block the truth.
The latest example to make the news (December 2010) was Pope Benedict’s refusal to allow Vatican officials to cooperate with investigations by the Irish Commission into the sexual molestation of children by priests.
Until the Church assumes a position of moral leadership in such a clear cut case, rather than worrying more about its own purse and its own reputation (at the expense of the victims), then it has no place in society as a moral authority on the topic of sexual conduct.
Surely nobody, Catholic or otherwise, could reasonably disagree with this view that the role of the Church should be to uncover the truth, and to make amends to the victims, rather than to try to avoid responsibility and to obstruct justice, and block the truth.
F
francisca
Guest
Just because some member of an institution commit crime does not mean that institution is bad. The church now is the loudest in opposing homosexuality, and immorality.
This thread is about gay civil union, not legal fornication or other topics. You guys may start new threads for those topics. Please address the arguments those z0wb13 fail to address despite so many and long posts.
This thread is about gay civil union, not legal fornication or other topics. You guys may start new threads for those topics. Please address the arguments those z0wb13 fail to address despite so many and long posts.
F
francisca
Guest
z0wb13,
You disagree with “equal but separate”, I can see such obvious gay agenda there, but no enough argument to support your disagreement.
My opinion: “equal but separate” has overstretched civil law on a topic that is so offensive to the nature of humanity. Just as much as you, I also disagree with “equal but separate”, only in my opinion, it should not be equal at all because homosexuality doesn’t contribute to humanity.
So please present your argument:
You disagree with “equal but separate”, I can see such obvious gay agenda there, but no enough argument to support your disagreement.
My opinion: “equal but separate” has overstretched civil law on a topic that is so offensive to the nature of humanity. Just as much as you, I also disagree with “equal but separate”, only in my opinion, it should not be equal at all because homosexuality doesn’t contribute to humanity.
So please present your argument:
- In what way homosexuality contribute to humanity, so as to become equal with heterosexuality.
- Please prove that there is “sex” and not “masturbation” in homosexuiality, so as to become equal with “civil marriage”.
Let me address your 3 arguments:
- Denying gays their right to marriage harms them
In order to prove this, you must establish fact that homosexuality is a genuine natural sex. if you cant, then homosexuality is nothing but a disordered sexual behavior (despite APA). If this is the case, marriage will surely harm them, instead of healing them. - Denying gays their right harms their children
Gay’s children will be better off if their parent (or parents) doesn’t “re-marry” same sex spouse. Such practice will confuse children with their sexuality and gender identity and gender roles in a family. This will be proven much later in their life. These children are lucky if the the other parent (the non-gay one) can educate them about what’s happening. This factor is not reflected in those researches saying that “gay’s childrens turn out to be normal”. In a scenario where a child has nobody to talk to about their gender identity, etc, they will surely confused. Care giver play part as “authoritative information” in a young age child. There is a case of a child being cared by dogs because she was abandoned by the parents in a dog kennel somewhere in russia (I watch this in Oprah show), the child behave exactly like a dog. She barks and walks and run on all four limbs) - Allowing gay marriage doesn’t harms anybody else or their marriage
Gay behavior is a sin according to our bible. Sin always harmful. Gay union (or even marriage) bring about even more harms to society, including to catholic people and children. We will be harmed because of gays behavior. For one example: I would not worry about my son on his boy school trips, now I do. This is only a start. Later, there will not be girls slumber party, or anymore term “best friends” among people of the same sex, because even among same sex buddies is lust toward one another. No more innocent friendships among men. There will be new deseases because of homosexual unhygienic practices. There will be new mental ailments/ disorder among homosexuals and their children and even among “normal-heterosexual” too (because of gay parents or friends or any form of interaction with homosexuals). Homosexual man will harm their wife both mentally and physically.
R
RobbyS
Guest
The church is faced by a concerted political effort by militant homosexuals to impose their views on the churches and society as a whole The homosexuals have already converted the elites to their point of view, as can be seen in statements by such persons as the wife and children of George W. Bush. The Church fears that acceptance of homosexual marriage undermines traditional marriage by giving a sexual liason between two persons of the same sex the same dignity as a man and wife. Furthermore, , there is an effort to silence anyone who says that homosexuality is immoral, or that such views have any rational basis. At the same time, there is an attempt to assert the view that the obvious biological differences between persons can be ignored, that sexual differences are fundamental psychogical in nature.
M
Me1234
Guest
I’ve always known and been taught that sex/fornication outside of marriage is a sin so you can’t say that about the catholics in my church. Actually the Monsignor in my church gave a homily on all that last week or the week before to let everyone know that fornication/masturbation/heterosexual and homosexual sex is wrong outside of marriage for a little reminder or wakeup call for some and said it really is a topic too many people have been silent on for too long. I know EWTN doesn’t ignore fornication. I’ve looked at their website and watched episodes of This Rock on it and homosexuality. They never lied about it/ignored it. We do need to be better at mentioning it because even though you can find out about it being a sin on the Vatican’s website and EWTN the catholics who aren’t very religious just follow the sluttier celebs views though that might be because their Priest never had the balls to address it outright like they should or they slept though church a lot. I agree more catholics have to get over the fact that it might make them feel awkward to tell a group of Christians that think fornication is alright that’s it’s actually a sin because it is need to know info even if they might be uncomfortable at how people who love that sin will react to them.
Stopping fornication would be difficult considering that celebs have make it so accepted and they urge people to have sex in music and movies I think our government might do as well on stopping people from drinking alcohol during prohibition. If addicts want something and think it’s great laws wont stop them so the government wouldn’t because it would make them look bad if they can’t enforce a law and the fornicator wouldn’t vote for them next term. So lobbying against it is not worth it. Gay ‘marriage’ on the other hand is something that can be easily regulated and I don’t want by future kids growing up in a society were homosexual and heterosexual marriage are acceptable. Repeated exposure of gay people kissing and flirting, like they will do more with encouragement like the government making it legally acceptable like sometimes even scolding people who say there is something wrong with putting homosexual unions as the same as heterosexual ones and their schoolteacher says that that’s nothing wrong with that, with each other can affect others opinion to think of it as regular and an secularly/culturally accepted sin. Sort of like lying. People do it so much: sarcasm, kiddings, “white lies”, jokes. Once others around you do it all the time you might pick up a bad habit that you wouldn’t have otherwise. The worse our culture gets the harder it is for some people to not sin “lye with dogs and you get flees” as the saying does. Gay guys go after straight guys all the time trying to change them and if the environment is right like it will be moreso with gay marriage legal. Future kids might have to live in an environment where they are taught it is normal to marry someone of your own sex. That will make it harder for people who want to resist any impulse to try out homosexual ‘sex/relationship’ they might think: “because they were all doing it so I thought it isn’t too wrong because then why would they do it and think it’s fun?” and thus it would be harder to be a good catholic in the united States. As such we are opposed to making it a law.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Your post does not make sense.
The Church is not ignoring fornication and general immorality. Of course, if you are not Catholic or Christian, you would not be hearing the gospels and homilies about these things during worship / Mass service. There are also many parish-based programs and now online sites to help members combat pornography, masturbation, pre-marital and extra-marital sins, drug and sex addictions, that bring about disintegration of the family and the individual’s separation from sanctifying grace. But secular mainstream media is not interested in reporting these aspects of Christian life, is it?
It’s absurd that you use ‘legal’ in front of ‘fornication,’ and asking why the Church is not lobbying against fornication, as though the Church or her members do not appreciate the difference between moral and legal, and what is achievable and not. Was the Church involved in the enactment of sodomy laws in this country or another? Did she stand against its eventual decriminalization? Is she acting to make it illegal (again)?
As to the lobbying against gay ‘marriage,’ you mistake the appearance that the Church is only concerned with the ‘anti-homosexual’ issue. It came about because of the militancy of homosexual activists in their demand for the institutionalization of gay ‘marriage.’ The Church would not be doing its job and fulfilling its mission if she is silent about a social and legal experiment that goes against a core teaching.
,
C
copperblade
Guest
Not to take things off on a slight tangent, but … I don’t know. I certainly don’t remember hearing announcements in church about voting against these things like I do with gay marriage. Did this just all happen before my time?
I totally expect the Church to have a position, it’s just like I said above… I don’t remember the Church being so active in telling the congregations what it thought about certain political issues except for abortion. Maybe it’s just me and I wasn’t paying attention to it. I know abortion is a hot topic, and so I understand it… so my question is essentially, why is gay marriage such a hot topic for the Church? And does the Church consider gay marriage to be on par with the issue of abortion?
S
sidbrown
Guest
I don;t see how an official and practising member of a Protestant Church, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, could possibly be at the same time a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church. But perhaps I have not kept up with the ecumenical movement. Is there some Church document which officially allows Catholics to be practising members of a Protestant Church? This is the first time I have heard of something like that.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Are you referring to the decriminalization of sodomy laws in the country? You can call up “Sodomy Laws in the U.S.” using any search engine on the internet. It will tell you how the laws were rooted in antiquity and carried on to the time of the monarchs like King Henry VIII who introduced legislation under English criminal law against sodomy. Sure, the monarchs had a Christian world view that sodomy is wrong (based on the Scriptures) and made it illegal. But it was governments, not the Church that criminalized sodomy. The Church has always taught that the punishment for unrepented sins is hell, and was not in the business of incarceration during one’s earthly life. Sodomy is no longer illegal in the UK, and the development was pretty much the same in other Western countries and the U.S. and other parts of the world, save the Muslim nations. I believe sodomy laws were repealed in most of the U.S. states by 2002.
If you are Catholic, and a practicing one, you would not be surprised at her position on gay ‘marriage.’ Yes, it is a hot topic, along with abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, human cloning, although secular media seems to be only paying attention to the gay ‘marriage’ battle. If the teachings are really of interest to you, you can read the CAF tracts.
,
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
LOL. No, you are not “behind the times.”
R
rossum
Guest
As a non-Catholic I have seen no general campaigns from the Catholic Church about the laws on divorce after remarriage. Not one. The Bishops do not ask questions about politicians stance on the question. With same-sex marriage I have seen such campaigns.
I take you point about what is preached inside churches. All I have to go on are the external campaigns, and those campaigns pretty much ignore fornication while talking a lot about same-sex marriage. To me the asymmetry is obvious.
Since most campaigners for same-sex marriage are also outside the Church, they will see the same things.
rossum
J
JustinH
Guest
You have that precisely backwards, Robby S. Homosexuals are not imposing anything on anyone. It is society as a whole who has imposed its bigotry on homosexuals. Sometimes this is justified with religious opinion, but bigotry is still bigotry, no matter how it is rationalized.
If you had lived 100 years ago, you would have heard the same religious arguments regarding race. 200 years ago, and it might have been about slavery. 60 years ago, and it might have been about women’s. It is not that hard to spot bigotry disguised as something else.
I have not heard those who advocate equal rights for gays proposing any restrictions on religious practices, or requirements that religious organizations recognize gay marriages. On the contrary, it is the religious groups who are trying to impose their own religious views on those who are not practitioners of the religions in question. It is an odd twist of logic to then turn that around and claim that gays are imposing their views on the religious organizations. Nice try, but it doesn’t make any sense.
This, like racism is simply a matter of time and attrition. As old bigots die, people will get their rights.
J
JustinH
Guest
Same sex marriage confers essentially the same benefits on its members as opposite sex marriage. This has been found repeatedly in psychological studies.
In this thread or another, someone tried to post a definition from the DSM II in 1968 claiming that homosexuality was an illness. That view was discarded by the APA who issues the DSM (now on version V) in 1973, 38 years ago.
Yes, every union has its problems. We don’t need to make that any worse through prejudice and backwards thinking.
M
Me1234
Guest
(Edited)
The Catholic Church is and was against slavery. But that doesn’t mean all Catholics listened. The Popes have condemned it but that doesn’t stop some Catholics from doing it. Plus groups like the KKK were also anti-catholic besides being racist so I can assure you no catholic was in that big pro-slavery group, it was all protestants. If you want proof you can look into it on this website: cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html
You don’t think it will affect our lives too? It will. It brings down the virtue of society as a whole and I have to live in that society.
The Catholic Church is and was against slavery. But that doesn’t mean all Catholics listened. The Popes have condemned it but that doesn’t stop some Catholics from doing it. Plus groups like the KKK were also anti-catholic besides being racist so I can assure you no catholic was in that big pro-slavery group, it was all protestants. If you want proof you can look into it on this website: cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html
You don’t think it will affect our lives too? It will. It brings down the virtue of society as a whole and I have to live in that society.
J
JustinH
Guest
It has already been overturned on constitutional grounds by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. This is an old ruling. Essentially, the ruling was that DOMA denies equal rights to legally married individuals. As long as marriage is a state right, then those who are civilly married in MA are legally married. However, DOMA confers different rights on individuals who are legally married based on gender. Therefore, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, and is struck down on constitutional grounds.
This is the same civil rights game. The majority is often loathe to provide equal rights to minorities who are perceived as different. This is precisely why we have the Constitution and the Judiciary. Part of their function is to prevent people or organizations… for example religious organizations… errr… like the Catholic Church… from having an undue influence in civil and moral issues. This works both ways. This is precisely why the Church will never be required to perform same sex marriages, until it revises its interpretation of the bible, as it has on other issues. This might be a few years coming though, as the Church has reacted to recent social trends by moving sharply to the right. It is no longer a progressive institution, as it has sometimes been in the past.
It is a pendulum though. The Church may stand on the side of social justice in this particular issue one day.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Possibly too subtle for the audience.
J
JustinH
Guest
Jim, you have not been keeping up, because in fact there are same sex marriages in Canada, several European countries, and a number of US States. Therefore, your logic is specious.
In another thread you claim that heterosexual marriage is a “natural institution”. Which is it? Is it natural? or is it an institution? By definition, it cannot be both.
You claim that the preservation of society relies on the union of opposite sexual organs. There will always be plenty of that going on, inside and outside of marriage. However, you fail to make the case as to how the union of same sex couples will have any effect on that fact. In that sense, you have not made a credible argument that the state has any interest.
Further, you fail to address the place where the state clearly (and legally) does have a compelling interest. That is the protection of the rights of those who wish to marry. The protection of personal liberty is a compelling interest of the state. This has been confirmed many times in the courts. This is a foundational tenet of our form of government and our society. None of the lesser points you raise rise to this level.
The Colorado court ruled many years ago that the state was unable to show any compelling interest in the gender of marriage partners. This ruling has remained unchallenged. There have been many opportunities to raise it as an issue, yet no attorney has done so since, and for good reason. It is agreed that it does not rise to that level.
- Status