I'd like to ask one more time (political opposition to gay marriage rights)

[edwest2]

Rau, good to see you again.

Are those two Vatican documents** binding authority** for Catholics? I received mixed answers so far.

Because if they are not, then my question is still not sufficiently answered and there is room for my case that Catholics should not feel obliged to object politically to gay marriage rights.

Where is the binding authority found in Catholic teaching that mandates political opposition? Is it in the Catechism or some Vatican document that really is part of the Magisterium?

Most of what I got so far is that it’s a moral issue or that it contradicts natural law. But like I posted before, there are reasons why secular governments do allow what is immoral or unnatural for Catholics. So the idea of “morality” or “natural law” is not enough to justify a political mandate.

They are binding. Assuming a government is secular does not mean the religious have no contact or dialogue with it. Politics includes everyone.

Peace,
Ed

 

[andrewstx]

I’m 66 and yes I am very well travelled. The world is NOT overpopulated. The fact there are hundreds of millions of poor is not because of overpopulation. It due to inequitable distribution of resources.

Back to topic. I repeat that homosexuality is morally unacceptable and like everything morally unacceptable it does negatively impact society as a whole.

Wrong. It is sexual acts between any two unmarried people regardless of gender that are sinful. Unacted upon SSA is not a sin but a temptation. We are all tempted.

 

[Corki]

Wrong. It is sexual acts between any two unmarried people regardless of gender that are sinful. Unacted upon SSA is not a sin but a temptation. We are all tempted.

All homosexual acts are sinful, not just the sexual ones.

 

[andrewstx]

All homosexual acts are sinful, not just the sexual ones.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that anything a person with SSA does is a sin? Like brushing teeth and dressing, eating Dinner?

Could you give me an authoritative quote from a church Magister or from a church document saying that?

 

[Corki]

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that anything a person with SSA does is a sin? Like brushing teeth and dressing, eating Dinner?

No, I am saying that the sin of acting out homosexual inclinations is not limited to sex. Dating, PDAs, same-sex couples adopting, same-sex “marriages” are all sinful activities due to the homosexual orientation of the people involved.

 

[kozlosap]

Andrew…if you are going to define the Tea Party to our British friends…please be honest.

The Tea Party is working for smaller government, less taxes and more freedom. Very noble goals.

I am a staunch Tea Party supporter and do not have any derision towards gay people. That is evidenced by my post #59 on this thread.

To be honest, Tea Party supporters have no derision towards anyone other than liberals.

and the educated!

 

[kozlosap]

All homosexual acts are sinful, not just the sexual ones.

Please elaborate. Do you believe that gay people are all sinful, just because they are born gay.

 

[andrewstx]

No, I am saying that the sin of acting out homosexual inclinations is not limited to sex. Dating, PDAs, same-sex couples adopting, same-sex “marriages” are all sinful activities due to the homosexual orientation of the people involved.

Understood, thank you Corki.

 

[andrewstx]

No, I am saying that the sin of acting out homosexual inclinations is not limited to sex. Dating, PDAs, same-sex couples adopting, same-sex “marriages” are all sinful activities due to the homosexual orientation of the people involved.

You do know that in “gayspeak” dating is the same as having sexual relations? Prostitutes use the same terminology.

I am not homosexual, but when I was younger I would go to concerts, movies, and dinner with friends of the same sex (usually in a group). I see nothing sinful in that at all.

 

[Corki]

You do know that in “gayspeak” dating is the same as having sexual relations? Prostitutes use the same terminology.

I am not homosexual, but when I was younger I would go to concerts, movies, and dinner with friends of the same sex (usually in a group). I see nothing sinful in that at all.

I think you are feeding into the stereotype that homosexuals do not engage in romance or dating - just sex. Going out with friends is different than dating - whether heterosexual or homosexuals are involved.

 

[andrewstx]

and the educated!

Don’t you know that education is out with the tea party set? They like to affect being common blue collar workers, while driving their Caddies and SUVs to the restricted Country club.

I think that could be part of the reason for Country Music’s popularity with many of them.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I would not condone too easy divorce or abortion which is killing. They do affect society. I don’t know why they keep being lumped together with homosexuality. Contraception is an entirely private matter for couples. The world overpopulation is going to be our downfall and lack of access to contraception keeps women in poverty the world over…but that’s for another thread.

You say you would not condone too easy divorce but why not? What right do you have to interfere in what two individuals do–how does it affect you–why can’t you just let them live in peace?

As for contraception it was considered sinful by all mainline Christian churches until 1930 when the Anglican Church changed its teaching and said contraception could be accepted within marriage. At the time this decision was roundly criticized --even by the Washington Post. People all around the world–not just Christians–understood the effect contraception would have-not just on a man and woman’s relationship but on society as a whole. At the time it was predicted that the acceptance of contraception would lead to an increase in the following: adultery, divorce, pre-marital sex, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, and fatherlessness which, in turn, would lead to an increase in poverty, crime, violence, pornography and homosexuality. Take a look around.

Overpopulation is not going to be the downfall of the world and woman are not in poverty because of a lack of contraception. Selfishness and over indulgent self gratification at the expense of others will be the downfall of the world and is what keeps others – not just women – in poverty. It is those who call themselves Christian but fail to make any attempt to truly live out their Christian faith – who live just like everyone else that have undermined Christian values and that’s why so many leave the faith–they see far too many pay lip service to Christian values and that contributes to the downfall. We have plenty of resources for everyone to live quite comfortably – look at what is wasted in this country alone. Waste, miss-allocation, greed and selfishness – are a cause of poverty–not contraception. But as you say that is another thread.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[CaliLobo]

Do you think the behavior of Catholics would be different according to the binding or non-binding force of those documents? How many Catholics even know of these documents?

And please note that we live in a democracy and get to express a view about the law of the land. Jesus did not have that opportunity viz a viz the Romans. How do you think he would have voted in a referendum on same sex “marriage”? Or on abortion rights?

You’re more evasive than usual Rau. Just answer, are they binding authority?

And I’m not sure how Jesus would’ve voted. But we do know that he never effected political change in Rome.

 

[MarkInOregon]

You’re more evasive than usual Rau. Just answer, are they binding authority?

And I’m not sure how Jesus would’ve voted. But we do know that he never effected political change in Rome.

It should be noted that Jesus was not a Roman citizen and did not have the right to vote or lobby for political change in Rome. So I don’t think it speaks to what we should do as Christians–as we try to do the will of the Father and spread the Gospel–living in a society that allows us a political voice and the ability to try to create a more perfect society.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Perhaps they should be brought up to know that they can and should commit - marry (call it what you will) just like heterosexual people, and that promiscuity is bad for everyone.

That’s good Kelt…I like that. I would emphasize that they should commit - marry - mate with the opposite sex…just like heterosexual people.

Lesbians having shorter lifespans because they are lesbians is just utter nonsense. How pray, does living with another woman shorten your life???!

I really don’t know…I’m just going by what studies from the Center for Disease Control show.
Lesbians have a shorter life span than heterosexual women. I’m sure there are many reasons but the bottom line is most likely that it is not exactly a normal relationship.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
Andrew…if you are going to define the Tea Party to our British friends…please be honest.

The Tea Party is working for smaller government, less taxes and more freedom. Very noble goals.

I am a staunch Tea Party supporter and do not have any derision towards gay people. That is evidenced by my post #59 on this thread.

To be honest, Tea Party supporters have no derision towards anyone other than liberals.

and the educated!

Now that’s not true either…most liberals, once educated, become conservative and join the Tea Party.

 

[CaliLobo]

It should be noted that Jesus was not a Roman citizen and did not have the right to vote or lobby for political change in Rome. So I don’t think it speaks to what we should do as Christians–as we try to do the will of the Father and spread the Gospel–living in a society that allows us a political voice and the ability to try to create a more perfect society.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

What?? Jesus, God incarnate, didn’t have the power to effect political change? More likely he chose not to because that was not his mission.

 

[andrewstx]

Now that’s not true either…most liberals, once educated, become conservative and join the Tea Party.

Holding my tongue in fear of an infraction. The one infraction I do have was brought about by a discussion about the “tea party”.

 

[Rau]

You’re more evasive than usual Rau. Just answer, are they binding authority?

And I’m not sure how Jesus would’ve voted. But we do know that he never effected political change in Rome.

I believe they are, and I note others have said so emphatically. But you didn’t answer me - what difference would it make? Have you read either? Do they suggest to you what you should do?

Jesus never set limits on how much homework children should do, or how much TV children should watch either. He never advocated the vote for women. And yep, the carpenter never marched on Rome!

Explain to me again why you are unable to say how Jesus would have voted on a proposal to extend marriage to include same sex couples. Would he have favoured it? Would he have cast his vote against it? And what about abortion Cali, which you have supported in other threads? How would Jesus have voted on that one? Would he have given his concurrence? Or are you unsure?

 

[Rau]

Perhaps they should be brought up to know that they can and should commit - marry (call it what you will) just like heterosexual people, and that promiscuity is bad for everyone.

Or, perhaps we should all learn the proper use of the sexual faculties, their natural complementary use, and if the right circumstances don’t arise in our life, to keep it in our pants? Perhaps we should all learn the forgotten value of friendships, and that a sexual partner is not a necessity in life?