Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?

[ERose]

I’ve read materials from those obviously biased sources. I would encourage you to read clinical research that has been published in peer reviewed journals or credible clinical sources such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists who in 2007 said ‘Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice’ (rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf).

You consider them bias because they do not agree with your side. The fact of the matter is that every bit of material out there is bias to one side or the other. But one thing I know is that until there has been proof discovered in humans that there is a “gay” gene, you have no proof. Psychiatrists can assume all they want but until there is proof, they have nothing.

Sorry for the confusion. I never said anyone was forced to have sex with anyone but just as the thought of having sex with another man is, at the least, unappealing to you so too with a gay man thinking of having sex with a woman. Is your argument then that people who are attracted to members of the same sex ought to forgo sex all together or attempt to suffer though sex with someone they do not find attractive?

The problems with this is that it is not necessarily true. Attraction is a very complicated. You can be attracted to another person for multiple reasons. It is not always physical attraction. You can be attracted to another because of their personality. Or you can be attracted to a person because of the lifestyle that they live. Not all couples end up together because of physical attraction. If that was the case I still wouldn’t be married. Still have discovered what attracted my wife to me but it sure wasn’t physical.

Anyway what I am saying is that if there is ever proof found that there is a “gay” gene, it would not be the reason why everyone living the gay lifestyle lives the gay lifestyle. It would only cover a percentage that would not be 100%.

Not discussing the having sex part in this thread. My argument is ultimately it is the decision of the individual to live the gay lifestyle.

Someone knows that he or she is gay because he or she is romantically, physically and sexually attracted to members of the same sex. As the APA puts it in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of California, homosexuality ‘refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.’ Put more simply, it’s what you’re saying and what I’m saying and more in some amalgamation.

Yes but it is still the decision of the individual to live the gay lifestyle.

 

[ERose]

It’s not all I have as evidenced by the fact that I said more than that. You seem to care about this issue and frankly it undermines your credulity when you use words that aren’t words. My legitimate argument is absent any claims that homosexuality is a choice or not which is that laws against extending the legal protections of civil marriage to same-sex couples has no rational relationship to any legitimate government interest (i.e. these laws fail the rational basis test, the lowest level of scrutiny related to a fundamental right) and that marriage is fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia). Further that homosexuality is not a defect and is not a choice (see APA citations above) and children raised by homosexuals are as well or **better socialized as those raised in two differing-sex parent homes **(Michael Lamb’s 2009 Affidavit to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf).

Thanks for the link. But I did notice something that is questionable. He never said that they were better socialized but rather “Like children and adolescents in other nontraditional families, children and adolescents with same-sex parents have sometimes been found to have less sexstereotyped beliefs, and to be more open in their views of societal norms and standards about appropriate behavior for males and females.” There is a difference there. Also much of the data that he was using was for non-traditional families, which includes a wide range of family types and even compared same sex families with single parent families. Very interesting. That being said I am not big on psychiatrists anyway. From my experience they are about as effective as meterologist.

I appreciate that you care passionately about this issue and that you think I’m wrong but at least give me credit that my arguments are founded in an understanding and passion about this issue and much research as I try to remind myself (read: hope) your position is as well.

Well to be honest, you are one of a few individuals (Larkin and Rossum are the only others) that I have dealt with that seems like he is open to conversation. I seems to me that there are others on this board that are here only to pass their agenda because they all have the exact same arguments, which they start out with amendment 14. When that doesn’t work they go with the “why not?” argument. And when that doesn’t work they go to the being hateful argument and then they leave. All of these people I have noticed are either trial or new members so now I must question who I am dealing with.

As I said, hopefully the issue will end at the Supreme Court and as you said that means the extension of the legal protection of civil marriage to homosexuals. I’m sure you’re not surprised that this is what I hope for.

I just pointed out that I do not think it will. On the gay side you have a very vocal albeit small group of people and on the other side you have the majority. This is not going to be officially settled for a very long time.

Hate speech? I think people who advocate that homosexuals should be jailed for pursuing sexually fulfilled lives are speaking hate as much or more than Ken was. Note also that I didn’t endorse his claims only that in context they make a bit more sense than coming out of nowhere.

I do not think that was what he was speaking out necessarily. He was pointing out activist judges with an agenda. You read way too much into that sentence.

 

[ERose]

It is the job of everyone to do the best he or she can to suss out what is right, good, moral and true and to live by the dictates of his or her conscience. In Christian terms, it is the duty of mankind to try to understand God’s will. I would agree that, assuming standard Catholic theology including its eschatology, many Christians will be surprised come Judgment Day but I think you will be doubly surprised at finding yourself amongst the number being lambasted by your creator.

So anarchy is the best approach to living? We all believe what we think is right, good, moral, and “true” and live by the dictates of his or her conscience? We as individuals must determine what is right and “true”? What a ridiculus statement you have just made. By your standing let us just open up the prisons and close down the law enforcement in this country and just go at it. Given in the worst case serial killers are doing just what you have said. They are doing what they think is good for them. Following their morality and the dictates of their conscience.

For you the word “true” is only defined as opinion it seems.

You are right that Christianity claims that it is the duty of mankind to **follow **God’s will. Understanding can come latter. The Bible and the teachings of the Church are very clear on what is right and wrong and since you are on a Catholic forum you should expect that those on this forum will use their Catholicity as a basis for their belief system.

 

[ERose]

I was not resorting to some ugly tactic of rhetoric when I attribute hate to many (certainly not all) of those opposed to gay marriage. I was referring to a poster who used the term “sodomite.” I don’t believe it takes any stretch of imagination whatsoever to read hatred into that. It’s nothing more than a quaint 1950s term for “******.” It is used with the same intention and inflection, and it’s every bit the equivalent of referring to black people as “the darkies” or the N-word. Can anyone seriously tell me that there’s a reasonable way to read charity or good intention into such words?

Sodomy is a legal term and was used in the court case that you two were arguing. So could you have went a little too far on your part? One reaction you could have had is to tell him that this term is offensive to you and could you please use this term, ##### instead?

It’s no reach at all to attribute hatred to many people involved in this issue because they make their hatred very clear. Many of them are in fact quite proud of their hatred. Most are suble enough to use euphemisms of one sort or another for their hate. Some are not. As a very conservative looking middle aged male, I find that most of them in private unmask their hatred and boast of it when they believe they have a sympathetic audience. In a long career in journalism and life, I’ve found that people always reveal their true selves sooner or later. Most people mean what they say. You can never really know the content of someone’s heart, but when they consistently employ the language and actions of hatred and bigotry, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to assume it’s a true reflection of their motivations.

Do you have proof of this or are you making assumptions. I know that there is alot of anger and hate but it can be found on both sides of this issue. Catholic churches have been vandalized. The Eucharist has been desecrated by those of the gay community in San Fran.

What we should be doing here is having an informed conversation here and nothing more.

 

[kenofken]

So anarchy is the best approach to living? We all believe what we think is right, good, moral, and “true” and live by the dictates of his or her conscience? We as individuals must determine what is right and “true”? What a ridiculus statement you have just made. By your standing let us just open up the prisons and close down the law enforcement in this country and just go at it. Given in the worst case serial killers are doing just what you have said. They are doing what they think is good for them. Following their morality and the dictates of their conscience.

For you the word “true” is only defined as opinion it seems.

You are right that Christianity claims that it is the duty of mankind to **follow **God’s will. Understanding can come latter. The Bible and the teachings of the Church are very clear on what is right and wrong and since you are on a Catholic forum you should expect that those on this forum will use their Catholicity as a basis for their belief system.

We as individuals must determine what is right and true if we are to avoid the horrors of places like Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge, where moral responsibility just devolves to some higher authority who knows best for us. Is my conscience perfect? Not at all, but it gets better with exercise, not disuse.

There are of course boundaries we must consent to in order to make civil society possible, but those are fairly minimial - our own free will cannot be allowed to infringe on the property or safety of others for example. Our prisons in this country are bursting at the seams precisely because we don’t make people develop their own conscience and self-control here. We treat them as adolescents under the thumb of a nanny state, and they live down to that expectation.

Blind obedience only works to the extent you can maintain fear, ever-increasing levels of physical force or physical restraint. A person with a well-formed conscience doesn’t need a book or the threat of hell or a cop on every corner to keep a lid on them. So flawed as it is, yes, I’m going to follow my conscience. I’m certainly not going to let you or any self-appointed spokesman of God dictate it for me. I don’t begrudge Catholics following their own consicence at all, but it will not be imposed on the rest of us beyond the limits of majority rule in a plural society.

 

[ERose]

Uh, was I responding to one of your posts? Do you know Thomas well enough to answer for him? Thomas made comments that I responded to I didn’t see your name attached to his post.

But anyway I will respond to your post.

We as individuals must determine what is right and true if we are to avoid the horrors of places like Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge, where moral responsibility just devolves to some higher authority who knows best for us. Is my conscience perfect? Not at all, but it gets better with exercise, not disuse.

It was individuals that developed the amorality that caused Nazi Germany and Khmer Rouge and it was those with undeveloped consciences that followed them. So I agree with you we must look at a much higher power than man for our morality and conscience development.

There are of course boundaries we must consent to in order to make civil society possible, but those are fairly minimial - our own free will cannot be allowed to infringe on the property or safety of others for example.

Minimal? You have looked at federal, state and local lawbooks lately have you.

Our prisons in this country are bursting at the seams precisely because we don’t make people develop their own conscience and self-control here. We treat them as adolescents under the thumb of a nanny state, and they live down to that expectation.

This I agree. Our youth education system in this country is definitely worse for wear when it comes teaching our youth morality and ethics. I have always been a proponent of teaching children ethics and logic as required subjects right along with math and reading.

Blind obedience only works to the extent you can maintain fear, ever-increasing levels of physical force or physical restraint. A person with a well-formed conscience doesn’t need a book or the threat of hell or a cop on every corner to keep a lid on them.

Never blind, but always informed. When I tell my kids that a certain behavior is wrong I tell them why. But I do expect them to do what I tell them to do even if I don’t tell them why.

If you conscience is not developed in a way that makes it compatable with society then you are going to have problems.

So flawed as it is, yes, I’m going to follow my conscience. I’m certainly not going to let you or any self-appointed spokesman of God dictate it for me. I don’t begrudge Catholics following their own consicence at all, but it will not be imposed on the rest of us beyond the limits of majority rule in a plural society.

So follow it, but do not expect to come to a “Catholic” website and not expect “Catholics” to tell what we believe and when your beliefs conflict with ours we are going to tell you. Think anything else is rather naive on your part.

 

[colmcille1]

Absolutely. I don’t see any reason why the principle won’t hold up in Ireland or anyone else. If people spend 90% of their time telegraphing hatred and 10% issuing disclaimers that they’re not bigots, it pays to go with what lawyers call “the preponderance of evidence.” Who hates Catholics in Ireland these days? I thought that was THE Catholic country. Still the unionists up north?

kenofken,
Ireland today is a country where the government do not care about the Church, where the liberal morally relativist media despise the Church and where the Church itself will not “box it’s corner”, so to speak, and stand up for the Truth of Catholic Faith.
To be perfectly honest with you, sir, when I debate with the non-believing folks on these threads, it feels exactly like the same old discussions I have with several Irish people who have drifted away from the Faith. The same astonishing ignorance of Scripture, the same stubborn refusal to acknowledge the great joy that said Faith brings to countless millions across the globe, the same disgust at Catholics insistence on an ordered conscience because it threatens their moral relativism.
And here, sir, is the tragic irony. You mention the northern Unionists. Their staunch adherence to and vocal proclamation of certain shared tenets of Christianity puts the weak-as-water Catholic Church in the republic to shame.
Every anti-Catholic “argument” I read only strengthens my commitment to my Faith even more. My love for my fellow man based upon His teaching will not be dimmed.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kenofken]

kenofken,
Ireland today is a country where the government do not care about the Church, where the liberal morally relativist media despise the Church and where the Church itself will not “box it’s corner”, so to speak, and stand up for the Truth of Catholic Faith.
To be perfectly honest with you, sir, when I debate with the non-believing folks on these threads, it feels exactly like the same old discussions I have with several Irish people who have drifted away from the Faith. The same astonishing ignorance of Scripture, the same stubborn refusal to acknowledge the great joy that said Faith brings to countless millions across the globe, the same disgust at Catholics insistence on an ordered conscience because it threatens their moral relativism.
And here, sir, is the tragic irony. You mention the northern Unionists. Their staunch adherence to and vocal proclamation of certain shared tenets of Christianity puts the weak-as-water Catholic Church in the republic to shame.
Every anti-Catholic “argument” I read only strengthens my commitment to my Faith even more. My love for my fellow man based upon His teaching will not be dimmed.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Much of the damage inflicted on the RCC in Ireland, is, unfortunately, self-inflicted. There, like in the states, there was horrendous and widespread abuse of children for decades, and worse, a response that treated victims as a zero priority, even to this day. It’s my sense that the wounds are even deeper there because of the universal and virtually unquestioned trust the Irish people held in the church for countless centuries. Wealth and the temptations of the modern secular world play a part, I’m sure, but they are not nearly enough to account for the unravelling of 14 centuries of faith in the span of one generation.

You should understand that I am not an atheist but pagan, one who had a very deep Catholic education in his youth. I am not seeking converts or to dissuade anyone from their faith at all. My points on this particular thread are only two-fold. One, my belief that no one has risen to the challenge of the OP, that is, to offer a rational, non-religious argument agaist the recognition of gay marriage. Second, it is my observation that opposing gay marriage does not in and of itself make one a hateful person. That said, I almost never see the face of your Christ reflected in the faces of those Christians (Catholic and non), who make culture wars their primary crusade.

 

[ThomasToo]

So anarchy is the best approach to living? We all believe what we think is right, good, moral, and “true” and live by the dictates of his or her conscience? We as individuals must determine what is right and “true”? What a ridiculus statement you have just made. By your standing let us just open up the prisons and close down the law enforcement in this country and just go at it. Given in the worst case serial killers are doing just what you have said. They are doing what they think is good for them. Following their morality and the dictates of their conscience.

Anarchy is hardly the best approach. There is consensus on many points (e.g. we have rights to a given set of things) and we build laws on those consensuses but beyond that, and most especially in our individual lives, we must simply try to determine the good on our own.

For you the word “true” is only defined as opinion it seems.

Not at all; there is objective truth but we must do our best to find out what it is. In Kierkegaard’s words, ‘the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.’

You are right that Christianity claims that it is the duty of mankind to **follow **God’s will. Understanding can come latter. The Bible and the teachings of the Church are very clear on what is right and wrong and since you are on a Catholic forum you should expect that those on this forum will use their Catholicity as a basis for their belief system.

I don’t think understanding can come before following. How can you follow something you don’t understand? Surely you cannot simply go off of what you are told. If so how do you know you are actually following God’s will and not someone’s misunderstanding of its dictates? My point was just that there are many different Catholicisms and yours is probably very different from Dorthy Day’s or my very liberal and very Catholic sister’s (for example).

 

[ThomasToo]

Thanks for the link…That being said I am not big on psychiatrists anyway. From my experience they are about as effective as meterologist.

Who then should be making verifiable, scientific and clinical claims about the realities involved here?

Well to be honest, you are one of a few individuals (Larkin and Rossum are the only others) that I have dealt with that seems like he is open to conversation. I seems to me that there are others on this board that are here only to pass their agenda because they all have the exact same arguments, which they start out with amendment 14. When that doesn’t work they go with the “why not?” argument. And when that doesn’t work they go to the being hateful argument and then they leave. All of these people I have noticed are either trial or new members so now I must question who I am dealing with.

Sorry you’ve been put off by a lot of people who just like to talk out of their butt. To be frank I’ve experienced something similar with people on your side many of whom seem to like to just slam their hand on the table when their stance is questioned on legal–as opposed to religious–grounds.

I just pointed out that I do not think it will. On the gay side you have a very vocal albeit small group of people and on the other side you have the majority. This is not going to be officially settled for a very long time.

Is the size of a group seeking a right relevant? Was it important in 1967 that a very small portion of the population was seeking “inter-racial” marriages?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hello everyone,

I’m in San Francisco for work for a few weeks so obviously the gay marriage issue is in the news constantly here. I understand the Church’s teachings on gay marriage and why it will be never be accepted and I feel comfortable explaining my views on that. My question is really: what are some NON-religious arguments against allowing gay marriage? When this conversation comes up, I am often confronted by people saying “You can’t impose your religious beliefs on others” “Separation of Church and State” “If we allow religions to make this law, what other laws (usually referring to Shariah laws) will be we allow them to impose on society?” I really don’t know how to respond to these statements without incorporating my religious beliefs. Any help?

The parts don’t fit.

 

[inocente]

Sarcasm noted. Yes God has spoken to me directly through His Church. I know being Baptist you do not have that luxary, but at least you have the Holy Bible. Try reading it.

The issue is that when I read even a Catholic Bible, I get completely different answers on this from the current view of the Church. I understand from other posters that some of the Church fathers got similar answers as me. Not sure who exactly (lost on an old thread) but I think one was Augustin. So who in the Church did God speak to, and when?

Really come on you can do better than that. Quite honestly the proof is on you not me.

Not on this thread, it’s you that needs to provide arguments against. You may have good arguments but I’m saying that particular “life style” argument is null because it can equally be applied to heteros.

You said in a previous posting that your church is loosing members and it needs to do something. Well if you are a true representative of your church and the majority of its members think like you I can understand why you are loosing members. No conviction.

No, I said that your Church is losing numbers – “You’ll know that my country changed the law with overall approval by an overwhelmingly Catholic population, and also that I have concerns about the falling away from the Church here”.

The issue in Spain, and I suspect elsewhere, is that many Catholics do not agree with this particular teaching by the Church. Some will stay, some may fall away, some give up entirely. You can say they are naughty and wrong-headed but it should also sound an alarm bell that something is wrong, either in the teaching or in the way it is explained. My point was that it might be handy if the Church did something about it one way or another. Do you disagree?

 

[inocente]

The parts don’t fit.

That’s probably the best argument yet. :tiphat: Have yourself a cigar.

 

[ERose]

Anarchy is hardly the best approach. There is consensus on many points (e.g. we have rights to a given set of things) and we build laws on those consensuses but beyond that, and most especially in our individual lives, we must simply try to determine the good on our own.

Thanks for clearing up your standing.

Not at all; there is objective truth but we must do our best to find out what it is. In Kierkegaard’s words, ‘the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.’

The quote refers to subjectivity not objectivity. Truth is something that is true no matter what anyone thinks. An example is the earth is a sphere. For centuries it was believed that the earth was flat. Everyone took that as truth because the best evidence at the time indicated that the world was flat. We know today that the world is in fact a sphere. But during the time that people thought that the world was flat was it really flat? I would say no.

I agree we should strive for the truth. Not our truth but the truth. And when we find that truth we hold onto it like it is a precious jewel.

I don’t think understanding can come before following. How can you follow something you don’t understand? Surely you cannot simply go off of what you are told.

I am confused here Thomas. Your first sentence is opposite of your second sentence.

If so how do you know you are actually following God’s will and not someone’s misunderstanding of its dictates?

My path to conversion to Catholicism was a gradual path. I was not raised Catholic and for that matter nor was I raised Christian. I was raised agnostic, who latter became a pagan, got into witchcraft for a little while, studied buddism and a few other religions, but what I was seeing and experiencing could not be answered by any of these worldviews. So I tried Christianity and through study and research I became Catholic. I found Catholicism after a lifetime of searching for the truth and quite honestly I have found nothing in it’s true teachings that contradicts another teaching nor have I found any argument against its teachings that is irrefutable. Thus I am Catholic. Now when I became Catholic I did not know everything about its teachings and quite honestly still do not, but I have learned to trust its teachings because they have never let me down. When to opportunity arises I will spend time learning about something I that I do not know thoroughly, but the trust is there and has been for the 20 years I have been Catholic.

My point was just that there are many different Catholicisms and yours is probably very different from Dorthy Day’s or my very liberal and very Catholic sister’s (for example).

No there is only one Catholicism. There is: “One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” Eph 4:4-6

 

[ERose]

Who then should be making verifiable, scientific and clinical claims about the realities involved here?

Psychiatry has never been considered a empirical science as biology, physics, astronomy are. The reason being is that there is truly very little empirical evidence in psychology. In psychology there is no absolutes as there are in the other sciences. In other words in psychology there is always exceptions and no scientific laws can be generated from exceptions.

Thus the evidence will have to come from biology, which includes genetics, or from statistical data of a large sample of individuals. But primarily from empirical data generated by biology since statistical data can be manipulated by the questions asked.
ThomasToo;7011447:

Is the size of a group seeking a right relevant? Was it important in 1967 that a very small portion of the population was seeking “inter-racial” marriages?

Didn’t say that. You are hoping for closure on this subject and I said it will not happen in the near future. Because of the fact that the gay-rights group albeit a small group of maybe 1-2% of the population is a very vocal group. If this went before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upheld prop 8, do you see the gay-rights groups saying ok the Supreme Court made its decision so we are done?

 

[ERose]

Who then should be making verifiable, scientific and clinical claims about the realities involved here?

Psychiatry has never been considered a empirical science as biology, physics, astronomy are. The reason being is that there is truly very little empirical evidence in psychology. In psychology there is no absolutes as there are in the other sciences. In other words in psychology there is always exceptions and no scientific laws can be generated from exceptions.

Thus the evidence will have to come from biology, which includes genetics, or from statistical data of a large sample of individuals. But primarily from empirical data generated by biology since statistical data can be manipulated by the questions asked.

Is the size of a group seeking a right relevant? Was it important in 1967 that a very small portion of the population was seeking “inter-racial” marriages?

Didn’t say that. You are hoping for closure on this subject and I said it will not happen in the near future. Because of the fact that the gay-rights group albeit a small group of maybe 1-2% of the population is a very vocal group. If this went before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upheld prop 8, do you see the gay-rights groups saying ok the Supreme Court made its decision so we are done?

 

[ThomasToo]

The quote refers to subjectivity not objectivity. Truth is something that is true no matter what anyone thinks. An example is the earth is a sphere. For centuries it was believed that the earth was flat. Everyone took that as truth because the best evidence at the time indicated that the world was flat. We know today that the world is in fact a sphere. But during the time that people thought that the world was flat was it really flat? I would say no.

I agree we should strive for the truth. Not our truth but the truth. And when we find that truth we hold onto it like it is a precious jewel.

Kierkegaard’s point was not that truth was subjective but that there are truths and there are truths around which people can (and do) build their lives. It may well be true, for example, that there is no such thing as a purple cow but I don’t think that truth is all that useful for establishing a coherent identity in this world while–at least for you and Kierkegaard–the truth of the Gospels is.

I am confused here Thomas. Your first sentence is opposite of your second sentence.

That’s because I’m an idiot. I intended to say the following: 'I don’t think understanding can come before following. How can you follow something you don’t understand? Surely you cannot simply go off of what you are told.

No there is only one Catholicism. There is: “One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” Eph 4:4-6

Of course there is only one Catholic Church (whether it is also holy, catholic * and apostolic is a question I shan’t address) but my point is that there are Catholics who unequivocally support the granting of the legal protections of civil marriage to homosexuals or the legal protection of abortion rights or who believe in astrology or who don’t believe in Hell. While they may not believe all the same things you believe, you all–that is you and them–belong to the same Catholic Church.*

 

[ERose]

The issue is that when I read even a Catholic Bible, I get completely different answers on this from the current view of the Church. I understand from other posters that some of the Church fathers got similar answers as me. Not sure who exactly (lost on an old thread) but I think one was Augustin.

Really? You need to display your sources. One thing I have learned on the forum is that if you do not supply sources for your assumptions you will get shreaded.

So who in the Church did God speak to, and when?

Uh the Apostles and all the disciples that walked with Jesus. St. Paul was another one. Really you should know this if you are a Christian.

Not on this thread, it’s you that needs to provide arguments against. You may have good arguments but I’m saying that particular “life style” argument is null because it can equally be applied to heteros.

No this thread has been highjacked and is no longer what its original intent. But in the general argument concerning this issue it is your side that must provide solid and valid reasons not our side. You are the group wanting to change the definition of a social institution that has been around at least in all of recorded history. Concerning the life style argument it is concerning the 14th amendment which does not protect life styles but rather racial and ethnic groups.

No, I said that your Church is losing numbers – “You’ll know that my country changed the law with overall approval by an overwhelmingly Catholic population, and also that I have concerns about the falling away from the Church here”.

I don’t know about Spain but here in this country and I believe worldwide the Catholic Church is growing. From what I understand in Spain the Church is getting squeezed out by relativism and Islam and that the Western European Church is hurting.

The issue in Spain, and I suspect elsewhere, is that many Catholics do not agree with this particular teaching by the Church. Some will stay, some may fall away, some give up entirely. You can say they are naughty and wrong-headed but it should also sound an alarm bell that something is wrong, either in the teaching or in the way it is explained. My point was that it might be handy if the Church did something about it one way or another. Do you disagree?

No I do agree with you somewhat. The Church has done something it has reaffirmed it teaching on this subject. If the Catholic Church being the true Church of God changed its social teaching as the wind blows what kind of religion would that be. The Churches function is to defend and protect the faith that was handed down to us by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. If we just start throwing that away the Church ceases being the Church. Yes you have people leave the Church and fall away, because the teaching isn’t always easy. As Jesus told us that we need to take the narrow less travelled road.

 

[ERose]

Kierkegaard’s point was not that truth was subjective but that there are truths and there are truths around which people can (and do) build their lives. It may well be true, for example, that there is no such thing as a purple cow but I don’t think that truth is all that useful for establishing a coherent identity in this world while–at least for you and Kierkegaard–the truth of the Gospels is.

I just don’t believe in relativism. And personally I believe relativism is used as an excuse by those trying to push various agendas but it come down to it, the person is only relative when you agree with him/her. When you disagree with him/her they usually throw out relativism very quickly. I am not acusing you of this but about 80% of the individuals I have dealt with on this forum and elsewhere are just like that.

That’s because I’m an idiot. I intended to say the following: 'I don’t think understanding can come before following. How can you follow something you don’t understand? Surely you cannot simply go off of what you are told.

Hey things happen. I like your response though. Straight forward. That is probably what I would have said as well.

Of course there is only one Catholic Church (whether it is also holy, catholic * and apostolic is a question I shan’t address) but my point is that there are Catholics who unequivocally support the granting of the legal protections of civil marriage to homosexuals or the legal protection of abortion rights or who believe in astrology or who don’t believe in Hell. While they may not believe all the same things you believe, you all–that is you and them–belong to the same Catholic Church. *Yes we do. I think that this is a fallout of the Protestant Revolt. Where some Catholics have determined along with the protestants that they can reject or change teachings to meet there desires and the life style they want to live.

I consider myself a orthodox Catholic in that I honor and respect what she teaches and it is not my place to question her in faith and morals that have being officially defined by the church. Are there things that she teaches that I wish were different? Yes there has been. But concerning those conflicts I have learned, usually through self inflicted pain and suffering, that she is always right.

 

[kenofken]

…
Of course there is only one Catholic Church (whether it is also holy, catholic * and apostolic is a question I shan’t address) but my point is that there are Catholics who unequivocally support the granting of the legal protections of civil marriage to homosexuals or the legal protection of abortion rights or who believe in astrology or who don’t believe in Hell. While they may not believe all the same things you believe, you all–that is you and them–belong to the same Catholic Church.*

This fact is also the result of doctrine which lays claim to people for life based on nothing more than the fact of baptism. The church is saddled with hundreds of millions of “members” who are nominally Catholic, indifferent or even outright hostile to its beliefs. That, in turn has produced a leadership which is more reactionary and less in tune with the needs of its members or the poor who Christ intended to serve.

This dynamic is ultimately going to prove as corrosive to the church as any scandal or attack from secular culture. With no exit door and no requirement of a sincere informed consent to join, people have decided they’re going to be Catholic on their own terms and that they’re just as Catholic as the pope. Having laid claim to them, Rome unwittingly supports them in this, although they can try to make disclaimers about real vs bogus doctrine etc., it sort of like locking the barn door after the horses flee. You can have a “universal” church or one where the brand actually means something. You can’t have both.