How Do Those Who Call Themselves Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[kanrok]

Well, if we’re being strict about it, a Sodomite was a person who lived in a town where some of its male inhabitants wanted to force themselves on unwilling male victims.

So technically, a sodomite is a male rapist.

But most people define sodomy as anal sex involving at least one man. I know it and you know it. And two women, by the very nature of their anatomy, simply don’t have that capability.

But far be it from me to educate people in the correct use of language and understanding of basic anatomy!

So you didn’t actually look up the definition.

I see.

Is it uncomfortable when you twist yourself into a pretzel?

 

[kanrok]

My conclusion is that what has been wrong has been the conclusions drawn by people about situations proscribed in the Bible.

It’s not the Church that is arrogant. The Church itself isn’t subject to arrogance. But the people within it are - and there hasn’t been a single sinless one of them. Ever. From Saint Peter, with his thrice fold denial and his foolish tempestuousness onwards, every single person that has ever walked this earth has relied on human ability to draw conclusions. And for a long time people have abrogated their own responsibility to question conclusions that have been handed down, instead trusting that people before them had done all the work necessary and they only needed to believe what they were told without questioning.

Well, thankfully, we are no longer required to believe blindly. Since we were allowed to read the Bible for ourselves, we have all been allowed to be ‘doubting Thomases’ and see the evidence for ourselves.

The evidence is there: St Paul - in the Greek and in the translations - speaks of the sin of heterosexual men giving themselves over to homosexual activity and wilfully rejecting that which was natural for them.

No honest person can therefore escape the corollary that it would be equally sinful for a homosexual person to give themselves over to a heterosexual lifestyle by wilfully rejecting that which was natural to her or him.

We are what we are by the Grace of God from the moment of our conception. It is not for us to question our natural being.

Yes, the Church may well never allow homosexual unions to be sacramentalised - and that isn’t a problem if the sacrament is related to unions that are open to the creation of life because that new life is, itself, sacrosanct and a gift from God and deserves to be held within a sacramental status. But that doesn’t mean that men and women who find themselves to be homosexual should live lives of despairing loneliness without the companionship and mutual support of one another that married couples enjoy. That would be cruel and unusual and to deny people that love, that joy, that safety, that mutual support, spiritual complementarity and connection is and can only ever be sinful if you really and truly believe that Christ Himself commands us to love one another.

It cannot possibly be and is not loving to deny someone else the chance to love the person whom they are naturally created to love.

And if that means I’m not a Catholic, then so be it. If the Pope (who, thankfully, seems to be much more enlightened on these matters than many of his flock) wants my membership card back, then I’ll gladly give it up. But nobody well ever persuade me that forcing someone into a life without love is a good idea.

Pope Francis excommunicated a priest in Australia for heretical beliefs including gay marriage.

Is he wrong too?

 

[Lochias]

Gay marriage causes unwanted pregnancies?!

Good grief, I’ve got some work to do on educating people about basic human reproduction!

“Gay marriage” creates a “I can do whatever I want” mentality in relationships that help contribute, yes.

Gay marriage causes a throw-away mentality about relationships?

Absolutely.

Considering that gay people haven’t hitherto had the opportunity to get married and now, in some places, they do, the idea that giving people the chance to commit themselves to another person is somehow encouraging people NOT to commit is ludicrous!

You’re missing the point. When people attempt to redefine a natural truth in order to get what they want for the sake of getting what they want, it creates a paradigm that espouses instant gratification in all walks of life. We’re seeing the effects now.

Further, two people don’t need a stamped paper to “commit” to each other; all that’s happening here is the persecution of religious rights and an attempt to force people to recognize an emotion that exists (rightfully or not) between two individuals.

Now, because you’ve not responded to my previous comment about it, answer me this: Do you believe in the Trinity?

 

[Lochias]

Pope Francis excommunicated a priest in Australia for heretical beliefs including gay marriage.

Is he wrong too?

Indeed. Do you still love Pope Francis, as your signature indicates?

 

[Lochias]

My conclusion is that what has been wrong has been the conclusions drawn by people about situations proscribed in the Bible.

It’s not the Church that is arrogant. The Church itself isn’t subject to arrogance. But the people within it are - and there hasn’t been a single sinless one of them. Ever. From Saint Peter, with his thrice fold denial and his foolish tempestuousness onwards, every single person that has ever walked this earth has relied on human ability to draw conclusions. And for a long time people have abrogated their own responsibility to question conclusions that have been handed down, instead trusting that people before them had done all the work necessary and they only needed to believe what they were told without questioning.

Well, thankfully, we are no longer required to believe blindly. Since we were allowed to read the Bible for ourselves, we have all been allowed to be ‘doubting Thomases’ and see the evidence for ourselves.

The evidence is there: St Paul - in the Greek and in the translations - speaks of the sin of heterosexual men giving themselves over to homosexual activity and wilfully rejecting that which was natural for them.

All of this simply amounts to a lack of faith in Jesus’ words about the Church. Nothing more.

No honest person can therefore escape the corollary that it would be equally sinful for a homosexual person to give themselves over to a heterosexual lifestyle by wilfully rejecting that which was natural to her or him.

Nope, because that interpretation doesn’t jive with the rest of that book of the Bible, nor the Bible in whole, nor with history, tradition or Authority of the Church.

We are what we are by the Grace of God from the moment of our conception. It is not for us to question our natural being.

So people with a predisposition to pedophilia should not deny themselves sex with children?

Yes, the Church may well never allow homosexual unions to be sacramentalised - and that isn’t a problem if the sacrament is related to unions that are open to the creation of life because that new life is, itself, sacrosanct and a gift from God and deserves to be held within a sacramental status. But that doesn’t mean that men and women who find themselves to be homosexual should live lives of despairing loneliness without the companionship and mutual support of one another that married couples enjoy. That would be cruel and unusual and to deny people that love, that joy, that safety, that mutual support, spiritual complementarity and connection is and can only ever be sinful if you really and truly believe that Christ Himself commands us to love one another.

This all assumes that happiness only comes from an intimate relationship with one other person, which is a premise so laughably flawed that I can’t believe you actually espouse it.

It cannot possibly be and is not loving to deny someone else the chance to love the person whom they are naturally created to love.

Again, so pedophiles and people like NAMBLA should not be denied sex with little boys? Really?

And if that means I’m not a Catholic, then so be it. If the Pope (who, thankfully, seems to be much more enlightened on these matters than many of his flock) wants my membership card back, then I’ll gladly give it up. But nobody well ever persuade me that forcing someone into a life without love is a good idea.

Again, your premise about what makes life worth living is fatally flawed.

 

[estesbob]

My conclusion is that what has been wrong has been the conclusions drawn by people about situations proscribed in the Bible.

So you include the church in that. One should look upon the church teachings as resting on a three legged stool. Scripture, tradition and the teachings of the magestrium. All of these have confomred the sinfullness of homosexual behavior for over 2,000 years. no matter how you parse you are claiming the church has been in error for 2,000 years based you “gut feeling” and your personal interpenetration of scripture. So gicen that should we trust the church in anything they teach? And how do we decise where they are in error and where they are not

It’s not the Church that is arrogant. The Church itself isn’t subject to arrogance. But the people within it are - and there hasn’t been a single sinless one of them. Ever. From Saint Peter, with his thrice fold denial and his foolish tempestuousness onwards, every single person that has ever walked this earth has relied on human ability to draw conclusions. And for a long time people have abrogated their own responsibility to question conclusions that have been handed down, instead trusting that people before them had done all the work necessary and they only needed to believe what they were told without questioning.

So why do we need a church is we are personally responsible for determing what is right and what is wrong?

Well, thankfully, we are no longer required to believe blindly. Since we were allowed to read the Bible for ourselves, we have all been allowed to be ‘doubting Thomases’ and see the evidence for ourselves.

And where does the church teach that?

The evidence is there: St Paul - in the Greek and in the translations - speaks of the sin of heterosexual men giving themselves over to homosexual activity and wilfully rejecting that which was natural for them.

in your opinion. But then again the church does not rely solely on Scripture as the foundation of its teachings. I ask again why God allowed his church to be in grievous error for over 2,000 years. Why is it only this generation that discovered scripture was interpreted wrongly?

No honest person can therefore escape the corollary that it would be equally sinful for a homosexual person to give themselves over to a heterosexual lifestyle by wilfully rejecting that which was natural to her or him.

We are what we are by the Grace of God from the moment of our conception. It is not for us to question our natural being.

Yes, the Church may well never allow homosexual unions to be sacramentalised - and that isn’t a problem if the sacrament is related to unions that are open to the creation of life because that new life is, itself, sacrosanct and a gift from God and deserves to be held within a sacramental status. But that doesn’t mean that men and women who find themselves to be homosexual should live lives of despairing loneliness without the companionship and mutual support of one another that married couples enjoy. That would be cruel and unusual and to deny people that love, that joy, that safety, that mutual support, spiritual complementarity and connection is and can only ever be sinful if you really and truly believe that Christ Himself commands us to love one another.

Love never expresses itself in sin. Christ command us to love one another-he doesnt demand we express such love through sexual behavior.

It cannot possibly be and is not loving to deny someone else the chance to love the person whom they are naturally created to love.

No one is denying anyone a chance to love anyone. But "love " is not carte blanche to engage in sinful sexual behavior

And if that means I’m not a Catholic, then so be it. If the Pope (who, thankfully, seems to be much more enlightened on these matters than many of his flock) wants my membership card back, then I’ll gladly give it up. But nobody well ever persuade me that forcing someone into a life without love is a good idea.

It means that you have rejected the churches teaching on homosexual behavior. Where that puts you is something you should discuss with your confessor. And again the we are not talking about “love”. we are talking about homosexual behavior

 

[DexUK]

Indeed. Do you still love Pope Francis, as your signature indicates?

Indeed I do - since our Holy Father is on record as saying that it is not his place to judge homosexuals.

I suggest that people here should follow his example.

 

[Lochias]

Indeed I do - since our Holy Father is on record as saying that it is not his place to judge homosexuals.

I suggest that people here should follow his example.

But he’s also on record as saying that the Church cannot and will not change its teachings on homosexual acts.

Further, you’re taking his statement way out of context, and I really do think you know that.

 

[DexUK]

All of this simply amounts to a lack of faith in Jesus’ words about the Church. Nothing more.

Nope, because that interpretation doesn’t jive with the rest of that book of the Bible, nor the Bible in whole, nor with history, tradition or Authority of the Church.

So people with a predisposition to pedophilia should not deny themselves sex with children?

This all assumes that happiness only comes from an intimate relationship with one other person, which is a premise so laughably flawed that I can’t believe you actually espouse it.

Again, so pedophiles and people like NAMBLA should not be denied sex with little boys? Really?

Again, your premise about what makes life worth living is fatally flawed.

Oh, I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone chucked the P-bomb into the argument.

Paedophilia is not and can never be loving since the situation can never be consensual and mutually complementary. End of argument.

 

[Lochias]

Oh, I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone chucked the P-bomb into the argument.

Paedophilia is not and can never be loving since the situation can never be consensual and mutually complementary. End of argument.

Ah-ah-ah…they were naturally created that way. It would be cruel to deny them what they naturally want.

Can’t have it both ways.

 

[DexUK]

Ah-ah-ah…they were naturally created that way. It would be cruel to deny them what they naturally want.

Can’t have it both ways.

I’m not having it both ways, since the two situations are not comparable.

 

[kanrok]

Well, you know, those “minor-attracted” people were just born that way.

What constitutes “consent” is governed by the law of each state.

The law of consent is subject to change.

A change that the “minor-attracted” community is seeking to accomplish as we speak (type?).

This “community” is following the well-worn path trod by those in the homosexual community that leads us to this discussion today.

If the laws of consent are reduced to, say, 11 years of age, what moral authority do you have to argue against it?

Slippery slope?

Well, yeah.

 

[Lochias]

I’m not having it both ways, since the two situations are not comparable.

Well, you know, those “minor-attracted” people were just born that way.

What constitutes “consent” is governed by the law of each state.

The law of consent is subject to change.

A change that the “minor-attracted” community is seeking to accomplish as we speak (type?).

This “community” is following the well-worn path trod by those in the homosexual community that leads us to this discussion today.

If the laws of consent are reduced to, say, 11 years of age, what moral authority do you have to argue against it?

Slippery slope?

Well, yeah.

Exactly. All it takes is enough people ignoring the obvious and wanting it signed into law. Sounds a bit familiar, these days.

 

[frobert]

The purpose of the question was to see if there was a reasonable answer.

But what I’ve found in this thread is no different than what my personal experiences are in asking Catholics I know how they cam to support gay marriage.

You can string together as many sentences as you choose to explain your position, but what it boils down to at the end of the day is that for a Catholic to support gay marriage he or she must necessarily determine that sodomy is not a sin.

As Nacho mentioned above, once we do that, there is a whole host of other behaviors we must then consider not to be sinful. In your list for instance: masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraceptive sex, virtually any sex outside a sacramental marriage that is not intended for procreative purposes is now okay!

Why not just say that the whole of the Catholic Church’s teaching on sex is just wrong?

The question is only directed towards gay marriage because that is the issue of the day.

I apologize for the way I worded that. Whatever my feelings on the issue maybe I can understand the frustration you are others may be feeling at this time. What I was trying to say, but blotched it, is that its over and since we can not get into the minds of other people say a prayer and save your energy for the next battle.There are always more coming.

 

[DexUK]

Exactly. All it takes is enough people ignoring the obvious and wanting it signed into law. Sounds a bit familiar, these days.

You seem to be forgetting that paedophiles do not have the consent of those they target. It is for that very reason that the law creates an Age of Consent, which is high enough that those who are asked to consent are sufficiently mature enough to be able to make an informed decision. Since that situation isn’t changing, you have nothing to worry about.

By the way, you might want to look up the ages of consent for males and females in the Vatican City State until just a few months ago…

Just sayin’…

 

[Lochias]

You seem to be forgetting that paedophiles do not have the consent of those they target. It is for that very reason that the law creates an Age of Consent, which is high enough that those who are asked to consent are sufficiently mature enough to be able to make an informed decision. Since that situation isn’t changing, you have nothing to worry about.

That’s all a matter of legalities, which we can see these days change like the wind. The logic to my argument holds: namely, that yours is illogical and indeed a slippery slope.

By the way, you might want to look up the ages of consent for males and females in the Vatican City State until just a few months ago…

Just sayin’…

Thought I told you I wasn’t interested in playing games. We can debate, or you can be ignored. It’s your choice.

 

[Gwendolen]

huffingtonpost.com/linda-robertson/just-because-he-breathes-learning-to-truly-love-our-gay-son_b_3478971.html

I’m actually going to try to answer the question.

To clarify, I am actually now Anglo-Catholic, which I know to many here is not the same as Roman Catholic, but the beliefs regarding gay marriage are the same for this church.

This post best explains why. Especially this: "Though our hearts may have been good (we truly thought what we were doing was loving), we did not even give Ryan a chance to wrestle with God, to figure out what he believed God was telling him through scripture about his sexuality. We had believed firmly in giving each of our four children the space to question Christianity, to decide for themselves if they wanted to follow Jesus, to truly own their own faith. But we were too afraid to give Ryan that room when it came to his sexuality, for fear that he’d make the wrong choice.

Basically, we told our son that he had to choose between Jesus and his sexuality. We forced him to make a choice between God and being a sexual person. Choosing God, practically, meant living a lifetime condemned to being alone. He would never have the chance to fall in love, have his first kiss, hold hands, share intimacy and companionship or experience romance."

Why indeed, all the posts about gay marriage? This bothers me a lot about this forum. There are not tons of posts about marriage after divorce, which Christ speaks out against as in I have not read any posts that read “my brother is on his second “marriage”, can we still take the kids and spend Thanksgiving with him”. Jesus speaks up about giving to the poor on many many occasions and I don’t read “Uncle George is very shallow, and never gives anything away, thinks poor people are lazy, should we still expose our kids to him”

Adultery is wrong. It is legal. Being a single parent by choice is not giving a child a mother and a father, that is legal. Getting married and divorced and remarried is a sin, yet not illegal. Pre marital sex is legal. Shacking up is legal. Being a stripper is legal. I actually find it a little creepy that so much energy is focused on gay marriage as opposed to these other issues. If we really wanted to protect society, why is this the huge issue at hand?

 

[Topaz1128]

That’d make a great survey for someone.

Questions could read…

Something like…Do you know what Humanae vitae is?
Do you know what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is?
Do you have a copy of it?
Do you know what the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are?

Perhaps only the “yes/no” questions would get answered.

 

[kanrok]

I apologize for the way I worded that. Whatever my feelings on the issue maybe I can understand the frustration you are others may be feeling at this time. What I was trying to say, but blotched it, is that its over and since we can not get into the minds of other people say a prayer and save your energy for the next battle.There are always more coming.

I appreciate the explanation.

I’m just trying to understand what’s occurring now.

I do not condemn individuals for perceived sins.

I’ve got enough to deal with worrying about my own.

I agree that I cannot get into the minds of others - I would expand that and say I cannot judge the content of anyone else’s soul. That’s not my job, nor is it the job of anyone else, the Pope included.

From my perspective, I believe it is more charitable to vote my conscience than to just give in to the zeitgeit.

So if you were to put a gun to my head and ask me what my plan is for gay marriage, I would simply say “I don’t support it and I do not support politicians who support it.”

From my understanding of Catholic doctrine, that is my duty.

I was wondering if someone had a better idea than this, and found that no, there isn’t.

 

[Nacho45]

Well, by your definition, I’m clearly not a Catholic then. Good job I don’t have to listen to you!

My definition of Catholic? I don’t have a definition of Catholic, but if I had to develop one it would be a simple, “person who follows Catholic dogma.”

What was your thought on my definition of Catholic?