homosexual marriage

[wynnejj]

Well, no, not anarchy, but there are many things I personally do not find acceptable (the right to protection from trespass when the only issue is presence on another’s land for example), in which I know my view is so insignificant that the majority are ever likely to accept it. So I accept theirs. In general in a democracy I accept the right of the majority. The US system, in which rights are protected by a written constitution is superior to that in most Commonwealth countries, in which constitutional protection is weak.

Therefore, I take it that you would agree that if we turned the clock back before the sexual revolution in the 60s and if the widespread acceptance of contraception and consensual sex leading to the general breakdown of marriage & family never came to pass … that if gay marriage never got off the ground as a movement … that people are entitled to their beliefs AND they have the right to impose these on society … assuming social consensus is achieved over time. My contention is that if western Christian society had not validated the use of contraceptive practices, then the sexual revolution in western society would not have occurred and the social consensus standing the test of time would be that marriage is only valid between one man and one woman. So trying to float the idea that people must not impose their beliefs on minorities seems illogical since your concept of “rights” is based on social consensus standing the test of time.

 

[Hokomai]

Therefore, I take it that you would agree that if we turned the clock back before the sexual revolution in the 60s and if the widespread acceptance of contraception and consensual sex leading to the general breakdown of marriage & family never came to pass … that if gay marriage never got off the ground as a movement … that people are entitled to their beliefs AND they have the right to impose these on society … assuming social consensus is achieved over time. My contention is that if western Christian society had not validated the use of contraceptive practices, then the sexual revolution in western society would not have occurred and the social consensus standing the test of time would be that marriage is only valid between one man and one woman. So trying to float the idea that people must not impose their beliefs on minorities seems illogical since your concept of “rights” is based on social consensus standing the test of time.

One of the ideas gaining acceptance over time is that ‘might does not make right’. So small nation have rights, and minorities are given special protection. Indigenous people in colonised nations such as the US and Australia are good examples. It was not until the 1960s that the tiny minority of indigenous Australians were recognised as citizens. Now, they have specific legal recognition. There is a parallel, although not exact, with the way the majority treated the minority of homosexuals. But I have no doubt at all that you are right about the impact of woman-controlled contraception. But I think we disagree on the good thing or bad thing issue.

 

[Hokomai]

Interesting way to look at it. Except that Mary and Joseph did not demand the child Jesus. He was the gift of God to Mary and Joseph, as every child is, born but under special circumstances.

Children borne normally to a mother and father are not demanded by the parents. The parents want a child, and do what they can to have said child, but it pretty much is left to Providence’s hands as to whether one comes or not. In that case, too, the child is a gift from God. And let us not forget it.

However in the case of gay couples and the sterile beyond repair who have IVF etc, they’re basically saying, “I’m going to have a baby, no matter what! Because I want one, and no one’s gonna stop me!”

Do you… kinda see the difference?

Well, by its nature, the Holy Family is not directly analogous to any other family. But recently I debated with people on CAF who thought Mary was the perfect model for brides everywhere. I say that if a perpetual virgin can be a model for brides, the Holy Family can be a model for families conceiving in other than the usual way.

 

[ACCT]

Hokomai:

God has nothing against you in giving you His commandments on homosexuality. I think that God is anxious to be helpful. He wants you to get the maximum happiness out of life. That is the purpose of His commandments.

There are many ways to conversion. One approach is the** inner despair that we find in our disordered lives. ** However, I am a convert because I feel the love of God for me. That love is palatable. I get choked up, and tears come to my eyes. It took me over a year to figure out what was happening. One day I just opened the bible, and I read that if we knew how much God loved us, we would cry tears of joy. My love for God also implies sacrifice. I surrender my will and my selfish interests to God’s will.

**I will pray for your conversion. Some of the greatest saints are fallen-away atheists! **
Christianity is a failure if it is just a vague ethical humanism. Unfortunately, “Christians” have forgotten that Christianity is NOT about reforming society. **Reforming society is a common thread through the ages by those who claim to be acting in God’s name. Big mistake! **Fortunately, there are divine elements in Christianity. As my grandmother would say, “It will all come out in the wash.” Christianity is about regenerating men, not reforming society! Christianity changes society, one man at a time through evolution.

 

[wynnejj]

One of the ideas gaining acceptance over time is that ‘might does not make right’. So small nation have rights, and minorities are given special protection. Indigenous people in colonised nations such as the US and Australia are good examples. It was not until the 1960s that the tiny minority of indigenous Australians were recognised as citizens. Now, they have specific legal recognition. There is a parallel, although not exact, with the way the majority treated the minority of homosexuals. But I have no doubt at all that you are right about the impact of woman-controlled contraception. But I think we disagree on the good thing or bad thing issue.

The statement “Might does not make right” without qualification is an extremist position, as is the statement “People are entitled to their beliefs, but not to the right to impose these on others”. The proper use of might is right as is the proper use of law to impose beliefs on a minority. To suggest that religious people should not use their might to impose beliefs on a minority is an extremist position. You either want to skew the view of social consensus with your plea, or your unqualified statement is an anarchist position. One thing is for sure, though, is that you and I are incapable of getting it right completely and neither is the collective conscience over time as history confirms throughout all time that “war is good” and might skews the view of the history of rights.

 

[ACCT]

At the San Francisco Marriage Counter
“Next.”

“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”

“Names?”

“Tim and Jim Jones.”

“Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance.”

“Yes, we’re brothers.”

“Brothers?? You can’t get married.”

“Why not?? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”

“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”

“Incest?” No, we are not gay."

“Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?”

“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”

“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”

“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”

“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”

“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”

“Hi. We are here to get married.”

“Names?”

“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”

“Who wants to marry whom?”

“We all want to marry each other.”

“But there are four of you!”

“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”

“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”

“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”

“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”

“Since when are you standing on tradition?”

“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”

"Who says?? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.

The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

“All right, all right. Next.”

“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”

“In what names?”

“David Deets.”

“And the other man?”

“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”

“Marry yourself?? What do you mean?”

“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”

“That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

 

[wynnejj]

This is priceless!

Dear online USA marriage license service. We’re Mike & Ike and we’ve entered this web application to apply for a marriage license. (Mike, Are you there on the other end? You have to be online while we are conducting the transaction.) Mike lives outside the USA and I live in the USA. We have been sex-texting for years and we would like to contract a marriage promising never to sex-text with another for better or worse. Mike would like to become a citizen of the USA although he has no plans to move here permanently. He just likes our social programs that he would like to have the option to receive the benefits if the need should arise. He would be willing to move to the USA in that situation of course. (BTW, I love how you stream-lined this service to forward us automatically to the USA naturalization service. This is really convenient.)

 

[edwest2]

The Sexual Revolution is the issue. Since the late 1960s, the guiding principle is:

A) Sex is for pleasure. Period. End of story. Babies are optional, and we’ll have one or two if we feel like it, or not.

B) That was followed by the No-Fault Divorce devolution of the 1980s. Just put down “irreconcilable differences,” pay the lawyer, and you’re done. Kids? Oh well, they’ll just have to tough it out or not. I actually heard this on Divorce Court: “Your honor, I deserve to be happy.” The judge, seeing no obvious reason for the divorce, granted it."

Pleasure, pleasure and more pleasure. No more hardship, no more trusting in God. Love, commitment, trust. Nope. Make sure you take a test drive before the ceremony so you’re satisfied the sex will be good. Commitment through good times and bad. Nope. I just want the good - no bad or hard times for me.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Peace,
Ed

 

[TarkanAttila]

Well, by its nature, the Holy Family is not directly analogous to any other family. But recently I debated with people on CAF who thought Mary was the perfect model for brides everywhere. I say that if a perpetual virgin can be a model for brides, the Holy Family can be a model for families conceiving in other than the usual way.

I don’t think you are looking at it the right way. You are looking at it, I think, from the perspective of conception outside of the natural order. You see Jesus being conceived outside of the natural order of things, you see IVF, which is clearly outside of the natural order of things, and you think these are the same. In the sense that they are not the natural way to conceive, yes, you are right.

But I think you are failing to grasp the fundamental difference between the Virgin Birth and IVF etc.

Yes both depend on God’s ability to give life.

Yes both result in a human person inviolable in their dignities.

But the conception of Jesus was not something Mary asked for. It was something which was offered to her, and which she accepted. She wanted to love and obey God first and foremost. It’s all about God in this situation.

But with IVF, sperm donors, etc, it’s something the mother wants, despite the inhumane manner of getting it. It’s something she wants, craves. With IVF, it becomes ** all about her.** Never mind God. Never mind the child. She wants the child, come Hell or high water.​

I might tack on, however, that if a woman is having difficulty naturally conceiving, she is not doomed to be barren forever. We understand the importance and blessing of children.

That is why, instead of simply trying to get them “what they want, here and now”, Catholics have developed methods of actually treating sterility issues. Sterility is a disease, and it can be cured. Many can be - and have been - successfully treated so that you can naturally conceive.

A couple of examples include the Creighton Model or the Marquette Model of Natural Family Planning. (That’s right, NFP.)

 

[TarkanAttila]

Dear online USA marriage license service…

 

[TarkanAttila]

The Sexual Revolution is the issue. Since the late 1960s, the guiding principle is:

I would say, Ed, it goes back farther than that. As you said yourself - pleasure, pleasure, and more pleasure. But where did our lives go from being about power, money, or God, to being about pleasure?

Now, I’m not a Luddite. But I do think the Industrial Revolution and the factory system did allow us to have many more goods than humanity had been used to in previous centuries. Technology has allowed us to have an abundance unprecedented in previous history.

There is nothing wrong with abundance. It’s when we use material goods - food, clothing, purchaseables - to try to fill a void which can only be filled with God. Because then we may die thinking we are satisfied when really we never were, nor could be, satisfied.

Technology is good. However, fasting - self-denial - is also. It’s a practise which is woefully lacking. Especially in my own life. You fill self-denial with prayer, counsel, and the works of mercy. If we turned back to fasting and praying and service, our lives will change for the better.

I have been praying. I will be talking to a priest for guidance for my life. I wonder how I might serve others?

 

[Hokomai]

I don’t think you are looking at it the right way. You are looking at it, I think, from the perspective of conception outside of the natural order. You see Jesus being conceived outside of the natural order of things, you see IVF, which is clearly outside of the natural order of things, and you think these are the same. In the sense that they are not the natural way to conceive, yes, you are right.

But I think you are failing to grasp the fundamental difference between the Virgin Birth and IVF etc.

Yes both depend on God’s ability to give life.

Yes both result in a human person inviolable in their dignities.

But the conception of Jesus was not something Mary asked for. It was something which was offered to her, and which she accepted. She wanted to love and obey God first and foremost. It’s all about God in this situation.

But with IVF, sperm donors, etc, it’s something the mother wants, despite the inhumane manner of getting it. It’s something she wants, craves. With IVF, it becomes ** all about her.** Never mind God. Never mind the child. She wants the child, come Hell or high water.​

I might tack on, however, that if a woman is having difficulty naturally conceiving, she is not doomed to be barren forever. We understand the importance and blessing of children.

That is why, instead of simply trying to get them “what they want, here and now”, Catholics have developed methods of actually treating sterility issues. Sterility is a disease, and it can be cured. Many can be - and have been - successfully treated so that you can naturally conceive.

A couple of examples include the Creighton Model or the Marquette Model of Natural Family Planning. (That’s right, NFP.)

I appreciate this explanation, which I can see is strongly linked to your underlying religious views. But I am not sure you have correctly characterised the attitude of those seeking IVF treatment as selfish. A woman might seek such treatment because her spouse so badly wanted a child; or her parents; or her community (for example a small indigenous community at risk of disappearing). And while Mary in the biblical account did not seek a child from God, I assume by her betrothal she was seeking a child, and had she in fact prayed to be the mother of the Messiah, would Catholic belief in what she did be any different?

 

[wynnejj]

The Sexual Revolution is the issue. Since the late 1960s, the guiding principle is:

A) Sex is for pleasure. Period. End of story. Babies are optional, and we’ll have one or two if we feel like it, or not.

B) That was followed by the No-Fault Divorce devolution of the 1980s. Just put down “irreconcilable differences,” pay the lawyer, and you’re done. Kids? Oh well, they’ll just have to tough it out or not. I actually heard this on Divorce Court: “Your honor, I deserve to be happy.” The judge, seeing no obvious reason for the divorce, granted it."

Pleasure, pleasure and more pleasure. No more hardship, no more trusting in God. Love, commitment, trust. Nope. Make sure you take a test drive before the ceremony so you’re satisfied the sex will be good. Commitment through good times and bad. Nope. I just want the good - no bad or hard times for me.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Peace,
Ed

This scenario really lays the groundwork to subvert what I consider to be the primary purpose of marriage laws - that is, nurturing stability & security for the raising of children. With dual income, no kids marriage arrangements (how’s that essentially different from those who co-habit & contracept to avoid kids until they marry?) and the ability to divorce & remarry with kids so easy, it makes one question “Tell me again why government is involved in marriages?”. Why do we give benefits to those who don’t take on the responsibility of children or who can readily divorce & remarry to the detriment of the stability & security needed to properly raise children. This all leads to all the various questions about the legal definition of marriage based on the purpose of marriage laws. The argument for gay marriage which is morally wrong sounds reasonable given the current state of marriage divorce laws and the moral decay brought on by the level of extramarital activity.

 

[CopticChristian]

One of the ideas gaining acceptance over time is that ‘might does not make right’. So small nation have rights, and minorities are given special protection. Indigenous people in colonised nations such as the US and Australia are good examples. It was not until the 1960s that the tiny minority of indigenous Australians were recognised as citizens. Now, they have specific legal recognition. There is a parallel, although not exact, with the way the majority treated the minority of homosexuals. But I have no doubt at all that you are right about the impact of woman-controlled contraception. But I think we disagree on the good thing or bad thing issue.

Ho,

I cannot accept your musing as to the rights of people and sexual orientation. Indigenous Australians existed as people. They did not exist as a group of shunned homosexuals that were recognized as citizens.

Homosexuals are recognized as citizens. They do not deserve certain rights because they choose aberrant behavior. Where do we stop in granting special rights for aberrant behavior and who decides what is and is not deserving of special rights.

Indigenous Australians existed. Homosesuals exist. Homosexuals have more rights than the Indigenous Australians did prior to recognition as people.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, by its nature, the Holy Family is not directly analogous to any other family. But recently I debated with people on CAF who thought Mary was the perfect model for brides everywhere. I say that if a perpetual virgin can be a model for brides, the Holy Family can be a model for families conceiving in other than the usual way.

Ho,

The Holy Family is a model for accepting God’s will, for conceiving by miracle, for obedience, and for accepting mystery.

Other than the usual ways suggests that other than what the model is. You protray the model as other than what it is and translate that into abnormal behavior, disobedience and denying the Will of God.

 

[edwest2]

I would say, Ed, it goes back farther than that. As you said yourself - pleasure, pleasure, and more pleasure. But where did our lives go from being about power, money, or God, to being about pleasure?

Now, I’m not a Luddite. But I do think the Industrial Revolution and the factory system did allow us to have many more goods than humanity had been used to in previous centuries. Technology has allowed us to have an abundance unprecedented in previous history.

There is nothing wrong with abundance. It’s when we use material goods - food, clothing, purchaseables - to try to fill a void which can only be filled with God. Because then we may die thinking we are satisfied when really we never were, nor could be, satisfied.

Technology is good. However, fasting - self-denial - is also. It’s a practise which is woefully lacking. Especially in my own life. You fill self-denial with prayer, counsel, and the works of mercy. If we turned back to fasting and praying and service, our lives will change for the better.

I have been praying. I will be talking to a priest for guidance for my life. I wonder how I might serve others?

I have to disagree entirely. Prior to the revolution, Catholic Communities were stronger. People around me were making a real difference to live out their faith. Even as a boy I could sense that. No, it was not perfect, but we did not lock our doors at night. Neighbors cooperated with neighbors. We avoided the ‘bad kids.’

The Industrial Revolution had nothing to do with it. In my working class neighborhood in the 1960s, we had something sorely lacking in Christian and non-Christian life today: we were content with what we had. Refrigerators were nice, but I grew up without air-conditioning, Nobody had a credit card and all parents were saving money either for the education of their children or for “a rainy day” when an unexpected need arose. We were taught: “If you want to have something, then save your money for it.” We didn’t take out loans to buy things. We paid cash. And we learned to do without when necessary. At Christmas, me and my sister got two toys each and our mother told us to take care of them.

No, a coordinated attack began against the Church that culminated in a full-scale assault in the late 1960s. It broke apart Catholic Communities. The wolves in sheep’s clothing tried to convince us that instead of their being Absolute Truth or the one right answer, there were other answers. Better answers. Even “alternative - sexual - lifestyles.” If we don’t understand what happened in the last 40 years in particular - we had better.

1960 FDA approves the Pill

1966 The destructive, radical feminist organization, the National Organization for Women, is founded. www.now.org/

1967 Been hearing about problems at Notre Dame? Read this:

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511fea1sb5.asp

Freedom. Freedom from the Church.

1967 Time magazine cover story about The Pill. Freedom, again, from fear. Fear of what? Babies. Click on the right side to read part of the story.

time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19670407,00.html

Pope Paul VI read the ‘signs of the times’ correctly. He called a group to study artificial birth control and to advise him. Of course, they advised a loosening of the restrictions on ABC. The Pope upheld the constant Catholic teaching about ABC.

1968 vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

But the wolves pounced immediately.

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”

Source: regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=21122&se=362&ca=967&te=707

Got it? “… an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”

I guess I’ll have to be more blunt. The goal was and is, lots of sex with anyone, any time. That’s what represents the majority of the problems facing the West today: a misuse of the human sexual faculty.

1969 The co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League begins a campaign of lies and deceptions fed to the media and makes the Catholic Church the villain.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

We, The People, were lied to. And the lies would continue.

1970s Millions of dollars are spent on models, photographers, filmmakers, printers and distribution plus the buying and leasing of buildings to create the new Opium Dens – Adult Bookstores. The planned addiction pattern began.

1973 Abortion is legalized. By nonscientific vote, Homosexuality is removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.

All we’re seeing today is an attempt to subsidize “my alternative sexual lifestyle.”

So, to be blunt again - Sex became first in importance. Relationships and commitment were and are optional.

I never grew up with abundance and neither did my working class friends.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hokomai]

Ho,

I cannot accept your musing as to the rights of people and sexual orientation. Indigenous Australians existed as people. They did not exist as a group of shunned homosexuals that were recognized as citizens.

Homosexuals are recognized as citizens. They do not deserve certain rights because they choose aberrant behavior. Where do we stop in granting special rights for aberrant behavior and who decides what is and is not deserving of special rights.

Indigenous Australians existed. Homosexuals exist. Homosexuals have more rights than the Indigenous Australians did prior to recognition as people.

The issue was not any equivalence of indigenous people and others. The issue was the way the majority relates to the minority. I agree that homosexuals have more rights than indigenous Australians prior to citizenship. This does not mean that homosexuals have all the rights they should have in a just society.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I appreciate this explanation, which I can see is strongly linked to your underlying religious views.

Well, naturally. I mean, the Virgin Mary’s conception was, allegedly, a religious event, was it not? I mean, if the Creator of all life had offered you His plan to give you His Son to bear and raise, would you not do it, too, even if there was no sex involved?

But I am not sure you have correctly characterised the attitude of those seeking IVF treatment as selfish. A woman might seek such treatment because her spouse so badly wanted a child; or her parents; or her community (for example a small indigenous community at risk of disappearing). And while Mary in the biblical account did not seek a child from God, I assume by her betrothal she was seeking a child, and had she in fact prayed to be the mother of the Messiah, would Catholic belief in what she did be any different?

Hmmm.

I think, again, the difference is about what the point is.

What is the difference between a woman who prays to be a mother because she wants the child, and the mother who prays to be a mother because she wants to do the Lord’s will, and thinks it entails being a mother?

One does whatever she wants, whether she’s wrong or not.

The other does what is right, whether it’s what she wants or not.

Maybe this was posted in haste. Please allow me to mull it over and edit it.

And once again, I point out: if it is the will of God an infertile woman conceive, it’s quite possible she could seek the help of NaPro technology or Fertility Care or what have you, which unlike IVF actually can cure the disease of sterility.

 

[TarkanAttila]

If the post above me is still mine up there, please disregard it. This is an updated version.

I appreciate this explanation, which I can see is strongly linked to your underlying religious views.

Well, naturally. I mean, the Virgin Mary’s conception was, allegedly, a religious event, was it not? I mean, if the Creator of all life had offered you His plan to give you His Son to bear and raise, would you not do it, too, even if there was no sex involved?

But I am not sure you have correctly characterised the attitude of those seeking IVF treatment as selfish. A woman might seek such treatment because her spouse so badly wanted a child; or her parents; or her community (for example a small indigenous community at risk of disappearing). And while Mary in the biblical account did not seek a child from God, I assume by her betrothal she was seeking a child, and had she in fact prayed to be the mother of the Messiah, would Catholic belief in what she did be any different?

Hmmm.

I think, again, the difference is about what the point is.

What is the difference between a woman who prays to be a mother because she wants the child, and the mother who prays to be a mother because she wants to do the Lord’s will, and thinks it entails being a mother?

One does whatever she wants, whether she’s wrong or not.

The other does what is right, whether it’s what she wants or not.

Is it right to buy a human life for your own ends, whatever they may be?
Is it right to cause the death of (at least genetically and potentially speaking) other humans so that you can have a child?
Is it right to demand that a human being be placed in your care simply because most everyone else - even people who don’t want them - can?
Is it right for a child to be conceived not in a loving action, but in a laboratory?

IVF hurts the dignity of the child and turns him into a potentially disposable product (all of those frozen embryos) in a way the Virgin Birth did not. The virgin birth was a gift from God to Mary, and Mary to God. Natural conception is a gift from husband to wife and wife to husband. IVF is the husband and wife, with all good intention, demanding a gift that they’re not ready to receive, for whatever reason.

And once again, I point out: if it is the will of God an infertile woman conceive, it’s quite possible she could seek the help of NaPro technology or Fertility Care or what have you, which actually can cure the disease of sterility and allow for natural conception

But even then, if a woman does not conceive, by what right does she have to have a child? By what right is any of us entitled to a child? Having a child can be wonderful, for sure, but by no means is it an obligatory right.

 

[hglundahl]

Quote:
I am certainly not asking Christians to conform to the rest of society. I am asking them to stop the use of law to force others to conform to their views

Even if “our” views are those of humanity, historically?

Yes.

OK: in other words you are asking Christians to step aside and let you sweep humanity away from mankind, no thank you!

Quote:				
			**That sounds easy. What exactly were Jesus' words about homosexual marriage?**

Through his disciple St Paul.

I don’t accept that of Jesus was God, and he knew we would be having this debate int he future, and he agrees with you, that he would have left this important point to someone he never met to mention in passing.

He did. You accept it or not, that is your problem. He did. I duly answered your question and dodging my answer by nitpicking at source does not change that. He gave us a CHURCH and it fully accepted St PAUL was part of Christ’s plan for evangelisation.

And from his own mouth, about marriage:

Quote:
 	 		 			 				[3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is  it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who  answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the  beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause  shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and  they two shall be in one flesh. [6] Therefore now they are not two, but  one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put  asunder.

It would be more useful had he actually said something about same-sex marriage under civil law, which is what we are discussing.

He said marriage was FROM THE BEGINNING, and he said it was between MALE AND FEMALE.

Which is why marriage is undissoluble and good. And therefore it is illicit to call uncleanness indissoluble, illicit to call uncleanness good and illicit to call uncleanness marriage.

But you don’t think all sorts of marriages (like those of divorced people) are valid. Why do you accept civil registration of them?

Who says I do? In a sense I cannot counteract that right now, but that is no reason to let civil marriage registrations degrade even further away from God’s law. An Emperor of Christian Rome admitted to a Pope and was quoted by a later one, Leo XIII, that Emperors have their power in this context in order to further Church legislation on marriage, not in order to impose something else on their own.

I am glad Ireland said no to civil divorce in 1986!

Quote:
I did not think Christians invented marriage, or owned it in any way. I for one do not want to live in a society ruled by scripture. I’m against genocide for one thing.

So is Scripture, if you think the New Testament belongs to it.

Please point me to the New Testament scripture opposing the genocide,

Did: genocide=killing off of a whole nation. Matthew 28:last five of six verses. A killed-off nation cannot become a disciple, so genocide is against that command.

Quote:
Well if there is a God, and he intends to kill and inflict pain and misery on the innocent, even those innocent of the things to which he objects then God is certainly not right, and is certainly expressing no truth worthy of the name.

Misses the point that man belongs to God. Misses the point that as even for sparrows, no man ever dies without it being God’s will. Misses the point that God therefore can kill the innocent to punish the guilty, which we cannot: to us death penalty is ultimate judgement, and therefore we would be judging the innocent with the guilty. To God it is the eternity of the souls that is ultimate judgement and death as life something he does all the time.

I do not disagree that if there is a God, and that he is your God, that what you say may be true. But to my mind a God which actively kills the innocent, in preference to, for example, appearing in an unchallengeable way before us and making his existence and power clear, is not a God one can reasonably feel is good.

Well, then we have to know he is good against our feelings if that is the case. He unmistakeably appeared to Adam and Eve, and back then no innocent living creature was killed. Adam changed that for us.

Have Catholic lawyers; court registrars; people who register civil unions or administer adoptions; or note next of kin in hospitals; or administer wills; or note people to call when a child is sick at school; or provide employment rights to homosexual spouses under law; been following this teaching in all those many countries which legally recognise homosexual unions? if so, how many and what proportion? My guess is almost none and one zillionth of a per cent.

My guess is for France: either practising Catholics hand the issue of registering a pacs (concubinate with marriage similar consequences for juridics, open to homosexual couples) on to a non-Catholic or non-practising colleague or they do not even become court registrars.