Homosexuality and marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter twoangels
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apolojez said:
It’s refreshing being able to have a real discussion Rev. I appreciate your effort to at least think about what I’m saying. I agree that seeing both sides of this issue becomes much easier if you actually know a same-sex couple and take the time to see it from their point of view. There’s so much fear involved with this issue but the majority comes from what we do not know.
Click to expand...
I’m not one to use emoticons, but 👍
 
Buffalo, Here’s what I found at Webster’s:

Mar´riage
n. 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
Marriage is honorable in all.
  • Heb. xiii. 4.
  1. The marriage vow or contract.
  2. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
    The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son.
  • Matt. xxii. 2.
  1. Any intimate or close union.
  2. In pinochle, bézique, and similar games at cards, the combination of a king and queen of the same suit. If of the trump suit, it is called a royal marriage.
 
Apolojez said:
Didn’t God also create the animal kingdom? So why does every single species we know of that engages in intercourse in order to procreate, also engage in same-sex intercourse? It’s a fact of nature.
Click to expand...
If you want to be an animal, go for it. Prove that it’s a fact of nature.
 
RevDon said:
A. I would consider it no more sinful than sex for a heterosexual married couple.
B. The track record is spotty. Need some examples?
C. And lately, some portions of the Church are not listening to other portions of the Church
D. Are they same-sex married people?
Click to expand...
RevDon said:
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
Click to expand...
You are contradicting yourself. First you say sex in a homosexual relationship is not sinful, than you agree with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith that it is sinful.
 
saintjoe said:
You are contradicting yourself. First you say sex in a homosexual relationship is not sinful, than you agree with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith that it is sinful.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
My response was to Buffalo who asked how I would counsel a heterosexual couple who uses a specific variation in their love making.
I know it’s been hard to follow that portion of the conversation.

What you copied was from a document originating from the CDF which I was critiquing, essentially paragraph by paragraph. My comments in that post are in bold type.

However, in the interest of making my position very clear, I believe that any form of lovemaking, whether between same-sex couples or heterosexual couples, if it is coerced, is sinful.
 
RevDon said:
Wrong!
My response was to Buffalo who asked how I would counsel a heterosexual couple who uses a specific variation in their love making.
I know it’s been hard to follow that portion of the conversation.

However, in the interest of making my position very clear, I believe that any form of lovemaking, whether between same-sex couples or heterosexual couples, if it is coerced, is sinful.
Click to expand...
Ok, I still see a contradiction. You say uncoerced homosexual relations is not sinful but still agree with Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
 
RevDon said:
AS I have previously noted the portions in red define marriage. References to man and woman are descriptors concerning who may enact that reality.
Did Webster’s really have the part in green? That’s a surprise.
Click to expand...
I am really sorry…but I got suckered in again… dang… did you really just read the definition of marriage and pick and choose what you “note” as what “defines” marriage. You are now skyrocketing into the stratosphere of intellectual pride.

Good try on the CDF document too, but again it points directly to what you are engaged in right now…including the section that says

“which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.”

This says that the view you espouse…right now on this forum… is gravely erroneous. For the reason that you continually argue that the Church"s well established definition of marriage needs to change, to conform to "what we now know in light of current societal concerns.

But wait of course silly me…in the view of the Church… and your “opinion” of the Church is that it has no moral teaching superiority…especially in the case of the Catholic Church itself.

Are you really a Latin Rite Catholic priest? Be honest… I don’t need an address either…up in the northeast?, California?..Italia?J apan?
 
SonSearcher said:
I am really sorry…but I got suckered in again… dang… did you really just read the definition of marriage and pick and choose what you “note” as what “defines” marriage. You are now skyrocketing into the stratosphere of intellectual pride.

Good try on the CDF document too, but again it points directly to what you are engaged in right now…including the section that says

“which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.”

This says that the view you espouse…right now on this forum… is gravely erroneous. For the reason that you continually argue that the Church"s well established definition of marriage needs to change, to conform to "what we now know in light of current societal concerns.

But wait of course silly me…in the view of the Church… and your “opinion” of the Church is that it has no moral teaching superiority…especially in the case of the Catholic Church itself.

Are you really a Latin Rite Catholic priest? Be honest… I don’t need an address either…up in the northeast?, California?..Italia?J apan?
Click to expand...
Hmmm…:hmmm: Many priests I know were at Mass last night, and Good Friday services today, several times…

Could be in another country time zone or retired maybe. Strange though.
 
saintjoe said:
Ok, I still see a contradiction. You say uncoerced homosexual relations is not sinful but still agree with Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Click to expand...
In what way do you suggest I am agreeing with CDF?
 
SonSearcher said:
I am really sorry…but I got suckered in again… dang… did you really just read the definition of marriage and pick and choose what you “note” as what “defines” marriage. You are now skyrocketing into the stratosphere of intellectual pride.

Good try on the CDF document too, but again it points directly to what you are engaged in right now…including the section that says

“which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.”

This says that the view you espouse…right now on this forum… is gravely erroneous. For the reason that you continually argue that the Church"s well established definition of marriage needs to change, to conform to "what we now know in light of current societal concerns.

But wait of course silly me…in the view of the Church… and your “opinion” of the Church is that it has no moral teaching superiority…especially in the case of the Catholic Church itself.

Are you really a Latin Rite Catholic priest? Be honest… I don’t need an address either…up in the northeast?, California?..Italia?J apan?
Click to expand...
See my post on U.S. Senators as an example to show the difference between definition and condition, if you can’t get it concerning marriage.
If my views are GRAVELY ERRONEOUS then it should be very easy for you to show the error. Go ahead. CDF makes that claim and then leaves you hanging, with no resources to underpin your position.
I will grant moral superiority when CDF or one of you makes a convincing argument, but as long as all I see is poor scholarship, I’m not going to swallow it. You seem to have no problem subsisting on that kind of diet, and you are willing to build your eternal life around it as well as use that to judge others.
Do you have the skill to defend the CDF document by stating facts that show me wrong? All I see are unsubstantiated opinions, some based on faulty scholarship, even errors.

Incidentally, I had two Good Friday services today. Did you attend one?
Just to tantalize you, I was ordained by an Archbishop, now deceased, and yes, my current bishop knows my views.
 
RevDon said:
See my post on U.S. Senators as an example to show the difference between definition and condition, if you can’t get it concerning marriage.
If my views are GRAVELY ERRONEOUS then it should be very easy for you to show the error. Go ahead. CDF makes that claim and then leaves you hanging, with no resources to underpin your position.
I will grant moral superiority when CDF or one of you makes a convincing argument, but as long as all I see is poor scholarship, I’m not going to swallow it. You seem to have no problem subsisting on that kind of diet, and you are willing to build your eternal life around it as well as use that to judge others.
Do you have the skill to defend the CDF document by stating facts that show me wrong? All I see are unsubstantiated opinions, some based on faulty scholarship, even errors.

Incidentally, I had two Good Friday services today. Did you attend one?
Just to tantalize you, I was ordained by an Archbishop, now deceased, and yes, my current bishop knows my views.
Click to expand...
My brain hurts. I quit. Are you an associate or head pastor? How big is your parish?
 
RevDon said:
In what way do you suggest I am agreeing with CDF?
Click to expand...
I assumed that when you highlighted “It is not” in red, it was an affirmation. So now, I fully understand your position – you disagree with the CDF and think nothing is wrong with homosexual relations.

This really does come down to whether or not you are obedient to the Church. When I continue to read so much dissent with fundamental Church doctrinal teachings, I have a hard time believing you are a Catholic priest.

Have you ever read about St. Pio? His superiors were not exactly kind to him, but he still recognized authority and was obedient to Jesus’ Church. We can learn a lot from the Saints, and both of us should strive to walk in their foot steps.
 
saintjoe said:
I assumed that when you highlighted “It is not” in red, it was an affirmation. So now, I fully understand your position – you disagree with the CDF and think nothing is wrong with homosexual relations.

This really does come down to whether or not you are obedient to the Church. When I continue to read so much dissent with fundamental Church doctrinal teachings, I have a hard time believing you are a Catholic priest.

Have you ever read about St. Pio? His superiors were not exactly kind to him, but he still recognized authority and was obedient to Jesus’ Church. We can learn a lot from the Saints, and both of us should strive to walk in their foot steps.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you got my position wrong again.
I think that sexual relations between spouses is OK.
You pick your role models, but please don’t pick mine.
For many years I taught English. I’m sure you read Canterbury Tales. Think about how Chaucer criticized the errors of the Church 200 years before Martin Luther. Incidentally, Chaucer “disappeared.”
The question is about homosexuality and marriage, care to get back to that?
 
SonSearcher said:
My brain hurts. I quit. Are you an associate or head pastor? How big is your parish?
Click to expand...
“There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.” -Archbishop Sheen

…because the Catholic church has done a p-poor job of presenting itself.
 
RevDon said:
“There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.” -Archbishop Sheen

…because the Catholic church has done a p-poor job of presenting itself.
Click to expand...
What Pope Francis says is true. What RevDon says is unimportant, and we do not hear his words. - Dr. Leonard McCoy (paraphrased)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top