Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
If it did, then people would have to get married twice, once in Church, and once civilly. I suppose some Catholics would decide to forgo the Church ceremony, in the hopes of an easier annulment if they desired it.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to stop them from getting a civil marriage and skipping the Church marriage even as things stand right now.
 
lynnvinc said:
Granted there are homosexuals who choose that path, but even in that category, some have been pushed in that direction by abuses they’ve suffered at the hands of the opposite sex – abusive fathers, husbands. I know several lesbians in that category. They have chosen wrongly, but others are partly to blame, as well. We all need to be more loving and show the love of Christ to our family members and neighbors.

Then there are homosexuals who have developed biologically in that way. Physical and behavioral anomolies can happen at all stages of development – chromosomal abnormalities, hormonally-caused disorders before and even after birth. And synthetic chemicals play a role in some cases. Biologists have found female-female birds nesting together (with sterile eggs), and such, who have been found to have higher levels of synthetic hormone disrupting chemicals – such as found in petroleum products, like pesticides, plastics, cosmetics, etc.

Some peoble are born hermaphrodite or intersex, some with physical configerations of both sexes. They sometimes get operations, and most live exclusively as one sex. This does not mean they are homosexual though. There are others, I suppose, who have no such chromosomal or hormonal-based physical abnormalities, but chose to have a sex change operation – which would be way against Church teachings; but then who are we to judge since it could also be from some behavioral disorder caused by disruption of normal hormonal developement, and not visible in physical abnormalities. BTW, some learning and other behavior disorders are also linked to this chemical soup, but since universities, even public ones, are heavily bought & paid for by the frankencorps who make these hormone disrupting products, there isn’t a whole lot of really good research being don on this (as far as I understand), at least not to the level such a problem warrants.

I don’t in any way condone homosexuality, or premarital or extramarital sex, and I know our culture (Freud and MMead onwards) has contributed greatly to sexual licentiousness; tho there is also this biological impact, esp after WWII, when synthetic chemical use grew exponentially. I would hope all those engaged in such sexual wrongdoings could come to understand Jesus loves them, and God will give them the grace to stop.

God has given us this great burden and blessing by making us the sexyist of all creatures – we don’t have mating seasons, but are receptive throughout the month or year – to help form strong marriage bonds for the welfare of the children. And maybe our chemical soup has augmented in some cases this high level sexual appetite, and in other cases deceased it, and/or caused sterility. God also gave us the smarts and abundant grace to deal with all these issues, and to deal judiciously and lovingly toward those who have a hard time staying within the bounds.

Let’s pray for our homosexual brothers and sisters, and others tempted by immoral sex.

Well this thread and my musings on this have convinced me that had I been in Calif I should have voted for Prop 8 and for any prop that disallows civil marriage altogether – so as to prevent both homosexuals and heterosexuals from falling into the sin of civil marriage, which I think is worse than the sin of having sex outside of Holy Matrimony (which could be due to difficult-to-control-passions, rather than cold-blooded forethought as in a civil marriage), a sin that can land hetero- and homosexuals in Hell. I might be wrong on this, but that is what a priest told me decades ago.

I also would vote for all sorts of measures to help people who need help so they don’t have to be tempted to get into a civil marriage or civil union to get help, security, stability, and tax-breaks.
Click to expand...
You’ve convinced me that no one knows what causes homosexuality, but some of their rhetoric doesn’t make sense. For example, it’s been called a “preference”. Well, a preference is a choice, so why not choose to be heterosexual? They claim their rights are being denied, but that sword cuts both ways: what right do they have to demand my very conscience?
 
JimG said:
If it did, then people would have to get married twice, once in Church, and once civilly. I suppose some Catholics would decide to forgo the Church ceremony, in the hopes of an easier annulment if they desired it.
Click to expand...
I think that if they married with that attitude, a civil ceremony is best and appropriate I mean, why bother with the church at all? I am on my way to the cafeteria to choose my dogmas with a side of doctrine flavored by favorable teachings…
 
sedonaman said:
This misses my point.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, my response was not to what you said, but to what JimG said.

My opinion (which is less humble than is proper) is that government should not be in the marriage business. I think a license of civil union should be issued to all couples, gay or straight. Then, if a couple wants to “upgrade” to marriage, they can go to their religious institution for that religious practice.
 
JimG said:
The Catholic Church does recognize civil marriages of non-Catholics as valid.
Click to expand...
That’s not at all what the priest told me back in 1973 – civil marriages are grave sins, he told me, no matter what the person’s religion. Of course, I thought he was perhaps wrong, and perhaps he was. It was surely a shoker to me, a Protestant wanting to become a Catholic, esp since my parents only had a civil marriage. I tried to reason with him that surely there is a clause in the Bible about not being culpable of sin, if one has no idea at all it is a sin, but he insisted it was a sin, and not knowing is no excuse. But you might be right; it does seem rather drastic. But I guess many many people, Catholic or not, have pretty much condemned themselves to hell for something or other of a serious sin nature (for which they are unrepentant), so if it isn’t for civil marriage, then it will be for something else.

But another Catholic also pointed out to me about a year ago that engaging in homosexuality (no matter what the religion) is a sin, and homosexuals and heterosexuals entering into a civil marriage (no matter what their religion) is a sin. She said it was sin enough engaging in homosexual behavior, and homosexuals having a civil marriage (where it is legal) would be engaging in a further sin. So from that standpoint, concerned about not allowing them to sin further, she was against gay civil marriages. Not sure how she felt about civil unions, which seem more like an instrument to obtain benefits, e.g., at work or from the gov, that are typically held by married persons. So a civil union is only for benefits, not an actual marriage, it seems.

But I don’t know about these things much. All I know is my heart also goes out to homosexuals. I don’t want them to miss out on Heaven…I don’t want them to compound their sins. I’d also like to see them get benefits, and not be harassed, beaten up, tortured or killed for their homosexuality. Or be denied a living.
 
Real marriage is not a “right,” nor for the benefit of adults, but rather for the benefit of children who often come of a sexual union of male and female. That is the only logical rationale for marriage, and the source of great, irreplaceable benefit to society.

Real marriage protects the rights of children to know and be known by their biological parents.

In the last 40 years, easy divorce, artificial and in-vitro fertilization, contraception,
abortion, pornography and the media have all combined in a perfect storm to strip children of their rights for the sake of adults who want to have pleasure at the expense of children.

Re-defining marriage as a “right” of adults to associate strips children of the last vestiges of their true and natural rights to know and be known by their biological parents.

For the sake of our children, pray for respect for marriage.
 
Dale_M said:
My opinion (which is less humble than is proper) is that government should not be in the marriage business. I think a license of civil union should be issued to all couples, gay or straight. Then, if a couple wants to “upgrade” to marriage, they can go to their religious institution for that religious practice.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don’t know why this position is not supported by both opponents and proponents of LGBT marriage.
 
sedonaman said:
No. The idea is to keep the state from telling religious organizations who they have to marry and threatening to remove their tax-free status if they don’t comply. I agree that it is not a perfect solution, but what alternative do religious organizations have?
Click to expand...
Precisely!
 
Real marriage is not a “right,” nor for the benefit of adults, but rather for the benefit of children who often come of a sexual union of male and female. That is the only logical rationale for marriage, and the source of great, irreplaceable benefit to society.
Click to expand...
If protecting the rights of children is “the only logical rationale for marriage,” then infertile and elderly couples have no right to marriage.
Real marriage protects the rights of children to know and be known by their biological parents.
Click to expand...
So children who are adopted by non-biological parents have no rights to be protected?
Re-defining marriage as a “right” of adults to associate strips children of the last vestiges of their true and natural rights to know and be known by their biological parents.
Click to expand...
You appear to have little no respect for adopted children.
For the sake of our children, pray for respect for marriage.
Click to expand...
If you really have respect for marriage, work for the outlawing of divorce.
 
StAnastasia said:
Exactly. I don’t know why this position is not supported by both opponents and proponents of LGBT marriage.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that “marriage” will not be the end of their demands?
“A group of self-identified “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers” has released a statement beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html explicitly endorsing “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” Got that? More than one conjugal partner.
The people putting out this statement are not fringe figures. …” – Beyond Gay Marriage, By Robert P. George
Click to expand...
And
AFTER GAY MARRIAGE, what will become of marriage itself? Will same-sex matrimony extend marriage’s stabilizing effects to homosexuals? Will gay marriage undermine family life? A lot is riding on the answers to these questions. …
Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and “polyamory” (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician. …
Beyond Gay Marriage: The Road To Polyamory by Stanley Kurtz
Click to expand...
“Madness, once unleashed, knows no bounds.” – Winston Churchill
 
sedonaman;6937016]Have you considered that “marriage” will not be the end of their demands?
Click to expand...
You’re going at it backwards: if you want to protect marriage, outlaw divorce. Don’t start by preventing people from getting married who really want to be married. Outlaw divorce, which seems to be quite popular among Republicans and conservatives.
 
saneLIB said:
As Americans we should support the equal and just application of the law to all citizens. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter what any one church teaches, because civil rights cannot be taken by a majority vote. This is why Prop 8 is being challenged in court. The rights of the minority are protected from the will of the majority by the Constitution. This is a prime example of why religion has no place in government.
Click to expand...
Your post wouldn’t be pointless if this was Jedi Answers. As such, it isn’t and yours isn’t.

Very few people in the real world, even hardcore liberals, are concerned what Jedis believe. George Lucas laughs at these sort of things.
 
I went through RCIA in California. I loved that parish… . plenty of good Catholics, however… it was LIBERAL… they blew off the abortion issue in 2008, as if it was no biggie…

I can see majority of Catholics in California supporting gay marriage. Just my year in a California parish showed me the HUGE difference between the rest of the country and California.
 
StAnastasia said:
You’re going at it backwards: if you want to protect marriage, outlaw divorce. …
Click to expand...
The bishops have set the priority by declaring homosexual unions as one of five intrinsic evils. You are the one who has it backwards.
“Madness, once unleashed, knows no bounds.” – Winston Churchill
 
[sedonaman;6937810]The bishops have set the priority by declaring homosexual unions as one of five intrinsic evils. You are the one who has it backwards.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you and the bishops have it backwards. It is sheer cowardice to pretend to care about marriage by starting with preventing other people from getting married, and then to slink away and refuse to fight against divorce. Divorce is the real threat to marriage. Outlaw divorce first, and then go about preventing other people from getting married. To refuse to do this is cowardice.
 
sedonaman said:
The bishops have set the priority by declaring homosexual unions as one of five intrinsic evils.
Click to expand...
I probably should know this, but my brain is slow today. :o

Could you tell us in what document this statement was made? Or provide a link to a news article about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top