My personal take on gay "marriage"

[clem456]

So if all love is necessarily open to the creation of life (or else it’s not love), when Jesus says, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” he’s saying that you should be doing something with your neighbor that is “open to the creation of life”?

We are referring to conjugal love, or spousal love, which is a unique commitment of the whole person.
I’m thinking we’ve been around this topic enough to have this assumed in the context of “marriage”.
But it’s good you refined this for the listening audience.

 

[Rau]

It’s not just marriage - the overwhelming majority of non-Catholics do not believe that sex is primarily for reproduction either, and are therefore baffled by RC teaching on ABC…

Reproduction is central to the nature of sex. Do they think the presence of gametes in the male ejaculate is some sort of incidental effect? Did they not notice that the natural drive of the process is to bring male gametes into the proximity of the female gamete? Or are they closing their eyes and telling themselves something else?

While reproduction is central to the nature of sex, this is not the same as saying sex is to be used primarily when desiring to or intending to “reproduce”, and only secondarily otherwise.

As in all surveys, the phrasing of the question matters a lot.

 

[Thorolfr]

We are referring to conjugal love, or spousal love, which is a unique commitment of the whole person.
I’m thinking we’ve been around this topic enough to have this assumed in the context of “marriage”.
But it’s good you refined this for the listening audience.

The New Testament doesn’t even mention a special kind of love called “conjugal love” or spousal love". It only mentions three kinds: agape, phileo and storge, none of which are specifically defined by “being open to the creation of life.”

 

[Rau]

The vast majority of Western Catholics believe the same thing as evidenced by their use of ABC.

That behaviour is adopted because they understand biology and the nature of sexual relations! They desire one aspect of sexual relations “now” and are keen to avoid the other.

 

[clem456]

The New Testament doesn’t even mention a special kind of love called “conjugal love” or spousal love". It only mentions three kinds: agape, phileo and storge, none of which are specifically defined by “being open to the creation of life.”

yes that’s fine but you are aware of the other passages that clearly support man and woman as being made in the image of God, who is a Trinity of creative personal love. And man being in existence to be fruitful and multiply, because “it is good” in God’s eyes, that we are alive? That he delights in our existence?
That Christ referred to us as “male and female from the beginning”.
And spouses called to be like Christ who gave himself up for the Church (his bride) in complete sacrificial love, not just sentimental love.

Etc…

You have seen this all before surely.

 

[clem456]

The vast majority of Western Catholics believe the same thing as evidenced by their use of ABC.

I have yet to see anyone here agree that morality and justice are determined by popular whim. I see people, as you do above, noting that majorities of people believe and practice certain things.
But I haven’t seen anyone asserting “might makes right”.

Is that what you are asserting?
If so, I fear for anyone considered “minority”, cause that is a dangerous world right there.

 

[Stephen_says]

The New Testament doesn’t even mention a special kind of love called “conjugal love” or spousal love". It only mentions three kinds: agape, phileo and storge, none of which are specifically defined by “being open to the creation of life.”

Sorry for extrapolating.

1 John 4:8
“God is love”

Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”…24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind…26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”

Love creates life. God in the trinity could not be self-contained and also be love, he need to express and share his love with his creation, it is the nature of love. Just so, the marriage of husband and wife is a sacramental sign of the love of God, and therefore must be open to life.

 

[Thorolfr]

**That Christ referred to us as “male and female from the beginning”. **
And spouses called to be like Christ who gave himself up for the Church (his bride) in complete sacrificial love, not just sentimental love.

Etc…

You have seen this all before surely.

Galatians 3:28: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

 

[clem456]

Sorry for extrapolating.

1 John 4:8
“God is love”

Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”…24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind…26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”

Love creates life. God in the trinity could not be self-contained and also be love, he need to express and share his love with his creation, it is the nature of love. Just so, the marriage of husband and wife is a sacramental sign of the love of God, and therefore must be open to life.

Beautiful. :bowdown:

You read TOB I assume.

 

[clem456]

Galatians 3:28: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Good lord.
This gets the fundamentalist-Scripture-proof- text-of-the-year award.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Here is the passage in context.

Intent of the Law

  15Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

  19Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

  23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

 

[Stephen_says]

Beautiful. :bowdown:

You read TOB I assume.

Watched a very brief introductory DVD series on it but also read/listen to a lot of other things.

 

[DeusExMachina]

1. Yes, I realize we are Republic, but democracy and Republics could be given the same criticism. People choosing morality, through representatives or directly, is no good.
2. Interesting. Maybe because I am mostly around youth, I didn’t realize this. I would be curious to see what convinces you of that.
3. Well, any sort of government system that gives people the freedom to do what is good, and has the authority to weed out what is wrong. Could be a Republic, could be a Kingdom. What matters is that not all ideologies would be treated equally. Far from it. Those that pose a danger to the health of the people(gay “marriage”) would be locked down, but those that are neutral or good would be free to act. I definitely don’t claim to have the only solution, or even a coherently working one.

Technically, we are both a republic and a democracy; because we choose who makes the laws; “Republic” is just a blanket term for all non-monarchies

 

[Bradski]

Fair enough!

But you don’t need a Bible to see that homosexuality is wrong, you need a high school biology textbook. Or, heck, just ask anybody where babies come from.

Was that it?

 

[Lucretius]

I know most of you probably don’t share my views on this matter, but nonetheless, I hope you don’t mind my voicing my opinion. Let me start off by saying I am a libertarian, so that influences my view quite a bit. Because I’m libertarian, I believe in government acting strictly within the limits proscribed by the Constitution. The idea of the First amendment is that religious belief, or lack thereof, should not be allowed to influence secular legislation. Therefore, I welcome all attempts to undercut religious freedom loopholes for non-discrimination against LGBT people. It is NOT, in my view, the government’s place to legislate morality.

However, as Christians, we have a duty to obey God. And he has made it very clear that marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE woman. To pretend otherwise is both foolish and impious. Thus, it pains me whenever an ordained clergy figure, regardless of which church they belong to, brushes aside their commitment to obey the words of the bible. Likewise, its important to understand that the First Amendment works both ways, and any attempt to FORCE churches to accept gay "marriage should be vigorously opposed. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I say.

But what is religion in the first place? What is a religous belief? If religion is understood as a view of the meaning of the universe, then there is ultimately no such thing as secular.

Furthermore, if Christ’s Church is true, then it is idiotic, stupid, and foolish to build a society based on apathy regarding this truth, correct? This isn’t to say other religions can’t be tolerated though (depending on how closely they confirm to Christian truth, especially regarding morality).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

But what is religion in the first place?

An organized belief system.

 

[Lucretius]

An organized belief system.

Couldn’t we then say that much of what is called secular turns out to be a belief system, a religon? For example, if Christianity is true, then sodomy is a sin. And a government which decides that sodomy is not punishable not a moral crime, wouldn’t it be enacting a belief system, a religion, in opposition with the Christian one?

I think this definition makes the First Amendment, as understood by contemporary people, absurd and nonsensical.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

Couldn’t we then say that much of what is called secular turns out to be a belief system, a religon?

Sorry, I assumed that the belief system would be understood to be concerned with a deity or deities. Otherwise, yes, a political party would be a religion.

Edit. And perhaps I should include that the belief is concerned with spiritual matters. I think we’d need to include that as most people would consider Buddhism to be a religion and they don’t believe in a god.

So: An organized belief system that is concerned with a deity or deities and/or spiritual matters.

 

[ialsop]

Sorry, I assumed that the belief system would be understood to be concerned with a deity or deities. Otherwise, yes, a political party would be a religion.

Edit. And perhaps I should include that the belief is concerned with spiritual matters. I think we’d need to include that as most people would consider Buddhism to be a religion and they don’t believe in a god.

So: An organized belief system that is concerned with a deity or deities and/or spiritual matters.

Sounds like a good defenition to me.

Now let me ask you something.

Why ought we to discount religious arguments? (Unless, of course, you can scientifically prove God doesn’t exist)

 

[Lucretius]

Sorry, I assumed that the belief system would be understood to be concerned with a deity or deities. Otherwise, yes, a political party would be a religion.

Edit. And perhaps I should include that the belief is concerned with spiritual matters. I think we’d need to include that as most people would consider Buddhism to be a religion and they don’t believe in a god.

So: An organized belief system that is concerned with a deity or deities and/or spiritual matters.

Would morality be considered spiritual matters? Abrahamic religions tend to spiritualize morality, but do all religions do so I wonder?

Maybe different ones do so at different degrees?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Sounds like a good defenition to me.

Now let me ask you something.

Why ought we to discount religious arguments? (Unless, of course, you can scientifically prove God doesn’t exist)

This seems to be mostly historical: Europeans wanted to prevent another Thirty Year War

Christi pax,

Lucretius