Homosexual marriage really wrong?

[drafdog]

Gee, let’s talk about Nicolai Copernik’s occupation. His official duties included casting horoscopes for the court. Somehow I find the irony immensly amusing.

Matthew

 

[estesbob]

Gee, let’s talk about Nicolai Copernik’s occupation. His official duties included casting horoscopes for the court. Somehow I find the irony immensly amusing.

Matthew

And the point is?

Can you provide us a link to back this up?

 

[goofyjim]

Can’t we give these homosexual topics a rest?

 

[guanophore]

I have repeatedly said we need a new word because we should not call it marriage. Stop putting words or opinions into my mouth by skimming over my postings instead of actually reading them. We need to brush up on the reading skills we were supposed to have learned in elementary school.

It sounds like you are describing an intimate relationship between same sex couples that are in love with one another.

I have never once spoken about sexual activity either among heterosexuals or homosexuals. Again, I am keeping this out because of the moral issues involved. I am interested only in providing a socially recognized and approved structure for committed, life long, exclusive relationships which are characterized by emotional, psychological, and spiritual support and nurture.

I don’t think one can discuss this issue without involving moral issues. Unless of course, you want to discuss it from a purely political or economic standpoint. Why bring the discussion here, if you don’t want to include morals?

For those who thought that I was talking through my hat in saying that homosexuality diminishes moral culpability please remember that this goes to the relative capability to excercise free will. What exactly constitutes "full consent of the will?" Have you never done something you didn't want to do but felt compelled to do? Something terribly mundane like taking out the trash or washing the dog? Or done something because you were told to do it, like cleaning your room or sweeping out the garage? Our lives are filled with actions which have not received "full consent of the will."

If one’s life is filled with actions which have not received full consent of the will, then one is still a slave to sin, and has not been liberated by Christ. In such a case, it seems more prudent for a person to seek first the Kingdom, so that one can obtain freedom, then all else will be added.

As for the scientific community changing the teaching of the church with respect natural law, remember that Nicolai Copernik, Galileo Galilei and others were excommunicated for espousing a heliocentric view of the cosmos. We even went so far as to burn at the stake Bro. Giordano Bruno for heresy because he wouldn’t recant that view.

I think you need to brush up on your history. The problem with these scientists is that they wanted the Church to rewrite or reinterpret scripture in the light of science.

And VernH, when I said that we take nothing before the throne of God but our relationships with the people that God has placed in our lives, did you stop to think about it or just react? Please tell me what else we can bring. Money and property is out; that’s a no brainer. Titles are out. We have canonized saints who couldn’t read or write their own names so education is out. I can go on and on. What from this life besides how we treat our brothers and sisters is there of value in the economy of salvation?

Very great value, but not greater than obedience to Christ. If we are as giving as we can be to all those God has put in our lives, yet are disobedient to Christ, it will be of no credit. He will say “I never knew you”.

 

[guanophore]

Why does society need to formalize such things into law? You mean two friends living in the same house need a legal construct now? Why does friendship need to be exclusive? I cannot see your point?

I think he wants the couple to have the same political and economic advantages of a marriage. You can’t get unmarried partner benefits for you friend!

There are those who adhere to the principle that if you tell a lie three times, it becomes the truth.

I actually had someone tell me the other day that, if the person you are trying to convince believes what you are saying, then it is not a lie.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
There are those who adhere to the principle that if you tell a lie three times, it becomes the truth.

I actually had someone tell me the other day that, if the person you are trying to convince believes what you are saying, then it is not a lie.

I hope you were polite to the Senator.

 

[KarenNC]

You used the word “monogamous”, what exactly did you mean by “monogamous”

The core word means “single woman”.

Was skimming through this thread and wanted to point out that this is incorrect.

“Single woman” would be monogyny not monogamy.

www.m-w.com
monogyny
Main Entry: mo·nog·y·ny
Pronunciation: -nE
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: the state or custom of having only one wife at a time

monogamous only refers to the wedding or marriage.

etymonline.com/index.php?search=monogamous&searchmode=none
monogamy
1612, from Fr. monogamie, from L.L. monogamia, from Gk. monogamia, from monogamos “marrying only once,” from monos “single, alone” + gamos “marriage.” Monogamous first recorded 1770.

www.m-w.com
Main Entry: mo·nog·a·my
Pronunciation: -mē\
Function: noun
Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
Date: 1612
1archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2: the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.

γάμος ο = wedding marriage
gamos o

So it means single marriage, not single woman.

www.kypros.com gives the Greek equivalent of woman to be
Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.

woman wife = γυνή η
gyni i

and it is the same in modern and ancient Greek.

 

[East_and_West]

Could someone please explain why the Protestant reasoning here:
religioustolerance.org/hombiblot.htm

Is wrong? The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally, so why could the whole “man and woman” issue not be just a general statement? Not to mention that Genesis strikes me as a little iffy with its talk of a “dome over the world” (wouldn’t that only cover half of it?) etc.

Actually the Catholic Church believes in four methods of interpreting scripture:

1. Literal
2. Spiritual
3. Anagogical
4. Moral
   All four methods of interpreting scripture apply to every passage of scripture. Now we differ with Protestants on the meaning of the word literal. When we interpret scripture literally, we mean we are interpreting it according to the original intent of the author. This takes investigation and logical analysis. Since it is clear that St. Paul intended to teach that homosexuality is immoral, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Philothea53]

I offer a word for this argument.

Those who are homosexually inclined are not GAY, they are SSAD.

They suffer from Same Sex Affective Disorder. SSAD.

 

[Maxply]

Yes. Homosexual “marriage” really IS wrong!

 

[goofyjim]

I offer a word for this argument.

Those who are homosexually inclined are not GAY, they are SSAD.

They suffer from Same Sex Affective Disorder. SSAD.

Yes, but they can still be as happy as the rest of the population. And the definition of gay used to be happy. Why can we not all be gay then and force the homosexual activists to come up with a different term?

 

[guanophore]

Yes. Homosexual “marriage” really IS wrong!

Well, there really is no such thing, because “marriage” implies a man and a woman. When it is a same sex relationship, it has to be called something else, which is, I think, what the OP was trolling for in the first place.

 

[Renton405]

Could someone please explain why the Protestant reasoning here:
religioustolerance.org/hombiblot.htm

Is wrong? The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally, so why could the whole “man and woman” issue not be just a general statement? Not to mention that Genesis strikes me as a little iffy with its talk of a “dome over the world” (wouldn’t that only cover half of it?) etc.

There are some verses in the bible that are literal(this the verses they list)… and there are other ones that are symbolic, like the book of revelation or most of prophet Daniels revelations. Just because there is something symbolic in the bible dosen’t mean the whole thing is symbolic, just as if there is something literal in the bible dosen’t mean it is all literal…