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

[Rau]

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.

So Cali, you reckon Jesus would have voted informal? Really? Jesus, God incarnate, the Way and the Truth, who died for the Tuth, would not vote in accord with his own teaching. He would have urged his followers to vote informal? Is that what you think Cali?

 

[Kelt]

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?

Haha! Nicely put! But there’s a fat chance of that isn’t there…it’s far too nice to ignore!!!

 

[edwest2]

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?

Exactly right. That was the rule I was taught - No sex until marriage PERIOD. And we got it. Getting a girl pregnant was not a trivial matter, and we got that too - most of us. Now, some Christians are ignoring that. We cannot afford to. CAN NOT. And relationships need to be built on friendships, trust and respect.

Only you decide to control your sexuality. It’s not impossible. Not “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” Don’t bow down to that secular commandment. You will be judged as you, not “Well, all my friends were doing it so I thought it was OK…”

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

It’s obvious from human anatomy and biology that human beings are created male and female. They come in these two sexually complementary types.

But, the U.S. Constitution requires absolute equality, so nature’s design is unconstitutional. This error of nature will have to be corrected by the Courts!

 

[CaliLobo]

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!

Yes I have skimmed them multiple times. It makes a huge difference. If those documents are not binding, then it obviates the need for conservative Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage.

So who wants to answer my question: Where is the binding authority?

Rau:

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?

Questions about how Jesus would have voted are pointless questions, since there was no voting in Jesus’ time. We will never know.

Honestly, I don’t see Jesus caring. I don’t see Jesus stooping down to the level of manmade secular governance. Jesus is more powerful than government and I don’t think it matters to him which way government goes.

I see Jesus going out on his own to preach and exemplify the Gospel and change people’s behavior that way. Not through the ballot.

JimG:

It’s obvious from human anatomy and biology that human beings are created male and female. They come in these two sexually complementary types.

But, the U.S. Constitution requires absolute equality, so nature’s design is unconstitutional. This error of nature will have to be corrected by the Courts!

We now know that homosexuality is naturally found in 2-5% of the population. And how about transgender and intersex? And not all sex between male and female is open to life. How about the infertile? Stop your outdated analysis.

 

[thistle]

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.

You are correct about it applying to two unmarried people. However, while with a man and woman it is a sin of grave matter it is not disordered but with same sex sexual relationships it is not only a sin a grave matter but the activity is gravely disordered.
In short sex between male and female is natural and normal (but should be within the confines of marriage) but between same sexes it is not.

If you read my earlier posts you would see I have not talked about same sex attraction but homosexual sexual relationships.

 

[Rau]

Yes I have skimmed them multiple times. It makes a huge difference. If those documents are not binding, then it obviates the need for conservative Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage.

A huge difference to whom? Do you think a material number of Catholics would take a different stance at the ballot box, in the court of political opinion, according to the status of a document? What the document does do, independent of its binding status, is add to the reasoning and logic that Catholics and all people apply to the subject. Or do you think large swathes of Catholics are expressing views counter to their own reason?

Questions about how Jesus would have voted are pointless questions, since there was no voting in Jesus’ time. We will never know.

Ducking and weaving does not help your case. Quite the reverse.

Would it make any difference to you if you believed Jesus would vote “No” to same sex “marriage”, or would you rationalise that as “He’s exercising his democratic right - so I’ll follow that lead and exercise mine!”

We now know that homosexuality is naturally found in 2-5% of the population. And how about transgender and intersex? And not all sex between male and female is open to life. How about the infertile? Stop your outdated analysis.

Is there an argument in there somewhere?

 

[Rau]

You are correct about it applying to two unmarried people. However, while with a man and woman it is a sin of grave matter it is not disordered but with same sex sexual relationships it is not only a sin a grave matter but the activity is gravely disordered.
In short sex between male and female is natural and normal (but should be within the confines of marriage) but between same sexes it is not.

If you read my earlier posts you would see I have not talked about same sex attraction but homosexual sexual relationships.

Actually, adultery and fornication (and other intrinsic evils) are intrinsically disordered. Intrinsically disordered and intrinsically evil are not fundamentally different notions. The terms address morality. You will find support for this both in the work of Aquinas, and in the work of current day theologians.

 

[andrewstx]

Zoltan: you have no need to hate me. You see I am no liberal. I am a moderate Republican.

 

[thistle]

Actually, adultery and fornication (and other intrinsic evils) are intrinsically disordered. Intrinsically disordered and intrinsically evil are not fundamentally different notions. The terms address morality. You will find support for this both in the work of Aquinas, and in the work of current day theologians.

Are you saying that all or just some specific sins of grave matter are immoral and consequently intrinsically disordered/evil?

 

[Rau]

Are you saying that all or just some specific sins of grave matter are immoral and consequently intrinsically disordered/evil?

Acts of humans may be immoral, even though the act is not intrinsically evil. Eg. An intrinsically good act (give money to the poor) done for a wrong intention (seek notoriety and self-promotion).

Intrinsically evil and intrinsically disordered mean the same thing. Such acts are always wrong to choose - no set of intentions or circumstances can make such acts moral.

I think there are many intrinsic evils listed in veritatis splendor. Lying, calumny, theft, etc, etc. I’m not sure where the rating of “graveness” comes from - do you know?

We digress…

 

[kozlosap]

Zoltan: you have no need to hate me. You see I am no liberal. I am a moderate Republican.

Not to throw this off the perverbeal track, but my reason for fearing the Tea Party is that I don’t believe that any Tea Party Candidate can be elected to the presidency. I really wish that the Republican Party was unified and not fractured. During the 80’s, there was one GOP, not the mainstream, conservative and Tea Party.

PS: why would anybody hate moderate GOP followers?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewstx View Post
Zoltan: you have no need to hate me. You see I am no liberal. I am a moderate Republican.

I don’t hate anyone, Andrew. :grouphug:

I said that I “deride” (your word) liberals. I am not exactly fond of MODERATE Republicans. I prefer hard core Conservatives from any party, race, religion, or sexual preference.

Not to throw this off the perverbeal track, but my reason for fearing the Tea Party is that I don’t believe that any Tea Party Candidate can be elected to the presidency. I really wish that the Republican Party was unified and not fractured. During the 80’s, there was one GOP, not the mainstream, conservative and Tea Party.

PS: why would anybody hate moderate GOP followers?

I don’t hate anyone, Koz. :hug1:

Moderate Republicans or “moderate” anythings seem to be middle-of-the-road types. They have no real principals. Therefore I am not fond of them. They need help and direction. It is my Christian duty to straighten them out and show them the way.

 

[CarmelJerome]

It’s obvious from human anatomy and biology that human beings are created male and female. They come in these two sexually complementary types.

But, the U.S. Constitution requires absolute equality, so nature’s design is unconstitutional. This error of nature will have to be corrected by the Courts!

I can't recommend re-reading "That Hideous Strength" often enough. Orwell valued it as a social satire, but of course, didn't like the supernatural parts that were essential to the satire.

Except the satire has become fatally real, and while trying to restore the sound moral sense that holds the debased and debasing acts in question, we should recognize that, just as the National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.) in Lewis’ novel presents concern for social values as its intention, it’s the scientist-philosopher Filistrato who tells the young professor, Mark, that the real goal is simply the replacement of Nature and the act of conception altogether with a purely technological one: that there will be no more procreation. Contraception and abortion for heterosexual couples, with in vitro fertilization, implantation, surrogacy, and adoption for Sapphic and sodomite couples – this is the game of the technocracy and the devils driving it, and their massively deceived and deluded ground troops.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

Come on – you know what I was saying–don’t play dumb. How does the fact that Christ didn’t start a revolution, didn’t use his divine power to overthrow Rome – speak to what we should do living in a society where we are allowed a voice in the government? How does it suggest that we shouldn’t participate in our own governance where it is allowed? We’re not overthrowing anything–we’re not actually changing anything–we’ve been trying to defend. Is it you contention that Christians should not participate in their government? Should not voice an opinion as to what type of society we should live in? What was the crime Christ was executed for?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

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

You know --in a way he did through the conversion of people–who led lives that were transformed–and consequently Rome and indeed much of the world experienced political change. We are once again experiencing a political change–a shedding of the core Christian outlook–largely, I think, because many, if not a majority, of those who call themselves Christians do not lead lives that are transformed by Christian belief – and so we find ourselves devolving toward that pre-Christian type of world–a world it would behoove us all to look into.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[DanielJT]

I OBJECT!

Christ was a revolutionary! He was the greatest rebel of all time!

We all know that ideas are powerful and Christ spoke of ideas that gave power to the powerless. The paradox of his rebellion is, of course, that it was peaceful power that He spoke of and the revel ion he incited did not end with His death but instead began anew even stronger.

Jesus does not tell us which was to vote, or what candidate to vote for, but her certainly INFORMS that decision. And in that tradition, so does The Church.

You have freewill and may choose to ignore these “informing urges” from The Church and choose to follow the secular that declares that all desires are natural worth pursuing as long as they do not physically harm those around them, but that is not the word Christ (The Rebel) pointed us towards.

 

[Rin]

Moderate Republicans or “moderate” anythings seem to be middle-of-the-road types. They have no real principals. Therefore I am not fond of them. They need help and direction. It is my Christian duty to straighten them out and show them the way.

I am a moderate, “middle-of-the-road type”, and I can tell you that I have very real principles; principal among them being not to let myself be blinded by political ideologies, not to let them obscure the real world, not to let them corrupt orthodoxy (in the case of conservatism), freedom (in the case of liberalism) or charity (in the case of socialism).

So I will not let myself be straightened out by any self-proclaimed ideologues, be they conservative, liberal or socialist, thank you very much . Such is, apart from Catholic faith, my strongest principle.

 

[DanielJT]

I am a moderate, “middle-of-the-road type”, and I can tell you that I have very real principles; principal among them being not to let myself be blinded by political ideologies, not to let them obscure the real world, not to let them corrupt orthodoxy (in the case of conservatism), freedom (in the case of liberalism) or charity (in the case of socialism).

So I will not let myself be straightened out by any self-proclaimed ideologues, be they conservative, liberal or socialist, thank you very much . Such is, apart from Catholic faith, my strongest principle.

Your Catholic faith is an ideologue, is it not? Do you mean not to let other ideologies take precedence over your Catholic one?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think your question belies a presumption of the secularistic “separation of Church and state” ideology. Why is the political arena this sacred cow that nobody is willing to talk about in the [American] Church even though there’s really no religious reason not to? I have this image in my head of people gobbling down pasta salad at a church festival then somebody casually mentions politics and someone asphyxiates on her noodles and dies… lol.

It’s really this simple: political opposition to gay marriage naturally logically flows from moral impossibility of gay marriage as well as the disordered nature of gay acts.

Seriously, come on now, would you ask, “Well I know it’s wrong for my son to hit my daughter in the face with a ball bat, but where does it say in the Bible that I HAVE to tell him so?” What kind of silly question is that?

To me this, “I’m personally opposed but,” stuff is complete bunk nonsense. It makes no sense. I just… I can’t even begin to see the validity of the suppositions logically necessary to ask your original question, OP. It’s just so ridiculous to me. It’s like this for me ._.

The Incarnation demands a response. We don’t sit around and listen to Jesus and stare at the sky, we listen to Him then act upon what He and His Church say.