Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

[Cathy]

A) Only a male and female can procreate. It would be ridiculous to make sure each couple is fertile before allowing them to marry.

Besides this particular argument against changing the definition of marriage to any relationship among people, there is the fact of complementarity (equal in dignity, but not sameness) between a man and a woman.

My father, a doctor and self-proclaimed liberal socialist, used to tell me as I was growing up, that there was no difference between men and women except in the bedroom. I don’t know where he got that idea, but maybe it’s what drove my mother mentally ill. As a geologist in the 70’s I tried very hard to act and look like a man, and it nearly drove me crazy.

Until I read Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women, I was still somewhat anti-Catholic. His letter convinced me that it could only be the Holy Spirit writing that love letter to women. I felt he understood and loved me, as a woman, not an object, better than I understood myself. Men and women are amazingly, fundamentally, beautifully different, not only in their bodies, but also in their immortal souls. What a freedom and a joy to acknowledge and celebrate the difference, and to acknowledge that the difference is good!

 

[StAnastasia]

Besides this particular argument against changing the definition of marriage to any relationship among people, there is the fact of complementarity (equal in dignity, but not sameness) between a man and a woman.

This is a neat trick, (1) using (when convenient) the unique ability ability of a man and woman to procreate as an argument against gay marriage, and then (2) quietly dropping that procreation argument for “complementarity” when heterosexual procreation is not possible.

My father, a doctor and self-proclaimed liberal socialist, used to tell me as I was growing up, that there was no difference between men and women except in the bedroom.

Yes, that is a silly idea.

Men and women are amazingly, fundamentally, beautifully different, not only in their bodies, but also in their immortal souls.

What is your evidence both (1) for the existence of immortal souls, and (2) that there is a gender difference between souls as well as between bodies?

What a freedom and a joy to acknowledge and celebrate the difference, and to acknowledge that the difference is good!

Absolutely!

 

[StAnastasia]

When I wrote the same thing here, but in softer words, just a few days ago, I was excoriated.

Let’s see how they respond to a Catholic writing the same thing…

Excoriation is a specialty on this forum, particularly when logical argument fails. I don’t permit excoriation in my theology classes. In fact, I don’t allow students to critique someone else’s position until they can articulate it fairly and clearly.

 

[Cathy]

This is a neat trick, (1) using (when convenient) the unique ability ability of a man and woman to procreate as an argument against gay marriage, and then (2) quietly dropping that procreation argument for “complementarity” when heterosexual procreation is not possible.

What is your evidence both (1) for the existence of immortal souls, and (2) that there is a gender difference between souls as well as between bodies?

You misunderstand. I am not dropping the idea of procreation, I am adding to it.

For the discussion of immortal souls, do a search in the apologetics section.

Regards,
Cathy

 

[rlg94086]

This is a neat trick, (1) using (when convenient) the unique ability ability of a man and woman to procreate as an argument against gay marriage, and then (2) quietly dropping that procreation argument for “complementarity” when heterosexual procreation is not possible.!

It’s not a trick. It is necessary when people with dull reasoning skills bring up the false argument of infertile couples voiding the procreative nature of marriage.

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s not a trick. It is necessary when people with dull reasoning skills bring up the false argument of infertile couples voiding the procreative nature of marriage.

Yes, it is a trick. Gay people can’t get married because they can’t procreate. Oh, wait – elderly and infertile heterosexuals can’t procreate either. Let’s see, what other reaosn can we find? Oh, two men or two women are not “complementary.” Why are they not complementary? Because they can’t procreate. But elderly and infertile heterosexual couples can’t procreate either…

 

[StAnastasia]

You misunderstand. I am not dropping the idea of procreation, I am adding to it.

How so?

For the discussion of immortal souls, do a search in the apologetics section.

So you have no evidence?

 

[sedonaman]

Conservatives. Conservatism is in a sense a mental disorder just as powerful as liberalism.

Wrongo!

In a society founded on collectivist principles, the development of individual competence in the population as a whole must be limited in order to preserve a dependent and submissive relationship of the people to a dominant government. In a free society founded on individualist principles, on the other hand, the proper outcome of child development is an adult person who is essentially self-reliant: he is at least minimally competent to function economically, socially, and politically through voluntary cooperation in a community of similar persons under limited constitutional government. A population of such persons is strongly inclined by nature to establish rules for living that protect individual liberty and property rights, while providing for material security, social affiliation, and the regulation of force and influence among its members.

… I ]t is clear that the child achieves competence by becoming an ethical and moral person as well as a socially and occupationally skilled person. The competent adult has acquired:
• high standards of ethical and moral behavior
• the self-regulatory capacities of a strong conscience
• instrumental capacities to work and relate
• the ability to produce and cooperate voluntarily in a community because he wishes to, not because he is forced to by government authority

The individual liberties celebrated in western civilization since the Enlightenment require for their preservation certain ethical, moral and legal prohibitions on human action. For these prohibitions to function, they must be incorporated into the individual conscience in the course of normal development. This requirement is critically important. If widespread in the population, serious defects in the development of conscience and ethical ideals, including the “work ethic” of economically productive activity, invariably result in the breakdown of social order. Morally and ethically competent individuals, by contrast, can establish through agreement and cooperative effort, and through appeal to the wisdom of history, all of the economic, social, and political institutions required to sustain social order and to meet human material and relational needs.

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

Liberalism denies all this. Liberalism affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will [not God] is the arbiter of all value. Within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth; and there is no principle * by which to discern among them. Society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one’s preferences over those of others. And that’s exactly what we are facing: the asserting of homosexuals’ preference over those of others. This anarcho-tyranny translates into affirmation of the individual human will over such traditional values as private property, public order, and even human life. Abortion is the perfect example of this.

Society, like most things in this universe, require constant (name removed by moderator)ut of energy * to maintain the social order; otherwise, like other systems, the natural tendency of order to disorder takes over. Liberal ideology not only removes that energy, but accelerates the disorder by reversing the energy [throws gasoline on the fire, so to speak]. In a society of complete disorder, man will suffer greatly, and anyone who advocates that has a mental disorder.

---

“Madness, once unleashed, knows no bounds.” – Winston Churchill**

 

[edwest2]

Truth is the issue. As long as truth can be covered up or ignored, the longer those who are against the truth can move forward.

Homosexuals can do whatever they want right now. They can make a commitment to each other if they want to. So why did they even bother putting this on the ballot? Why did they even bother asking anyone to approve what they do in the bedroom? What was the point? Nobody else needs my permission regarding whatever they might be doing in the privacy of wherever they live.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

Besides this particular argument against changing the definition of marriage to any relationship among people, there is the fact of complementarity (equal in dignity, but not sameness) between a man and a woman.

My father, a doctor and self-proclaimed liberal socialist, used to tell me as I was growing up, that there was no difference between men and women except in the bedroom. I don’t know where he got that idea, but maybe it’s what drove my mother mentally ill. As a geologist in the 70’s I tried very hard to act and look like a man, and it nearly drove me crazy.

Until I read Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women, I was still somewhat anti-Catholic. His letter convinced me that it could only be the Holy Spirit writing that love letter to women. I felt he understood and loved me, as a woman, not an object, better than I understood myself. Men and women are amazingly, fundamentally, beautifully different, not only in their bodies, but also in their immortal souls. What a freedom and a joy to acknowledge and celebrate the difference, and to acknowledge that the difference is good!

I celebrate women daily!

 

[larkin31]

Truth is the issue. As long as truth can be covered up or ignored, the longer those who are against the truth can move forward.

Homosexuals can do whatever they want right now. They can make a commitment to each other if they want to. So why did they even bother putting this on the ballot? Why did they even bother asking anyone to approve what they do in the bedroom? What was the point? Nobody else needs my permission regarding whatever they might be doing in the privacy of wherever they live.

In this country, justice trumps sexual sensibilities when they are in conflict. Get used to it.

 

[Tigg]

My point is that if you want to see what is threatening marriage, look around you. It is not the fact that more people want to participate in this venerable institution, but that many who have entered into it now want out, whether by divorce or by annulment, which is just a Catholics convenient trick to get out of a tiresome marriage. They call it “annulment” to weasel around the word “divorce.” If you want to protect marriage, fight to outlaw divorce and annulment.

I would consider this a very loose statement coming from a Catholic professor of theology. For the non-Catholics on this board, should we tell them that an annulment is a declaration by a competent church authority, after extensive investigation, that the “marriage” (despite appearances) never took place because there was an unmet condition (psychological or otherwise) that negated a valid, permanent bond from taking place?

 

[larkin31]

I would consider this a very loose statement coming from a Catholic professor of theology. For the non-Catholics on this board, should we tell them that an annulment is a declaration by a competent church authority, after extensive investigation, that the “marriage” (despite appearances) never took place because there was an unmet condition (psychological or otherwise) that negated a valid, permanent bond from taking place?

You can tell us this (and others have), but I, for one, don’t buy it. I understand it, but I find the explanation and rationale weak and very convenient. I don’t fault the RCC for doing this, however. I SUPPORT it. I just wish that they would be less hypocritical about it.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, it is a trick. Gay people can’t get married because they can’t procreate. Oh, wait – elderly and infertile heterosexuals can’t procreate either. Let’s see, what other reaosn can we find? Oh, two men or two women are not “complementary.” Why are they not complementary? Because they can’t procreate. But elderly and infertile heterosexual couples can’t procreate either…

You teach Theology? Seriously? What are your credentials? Do you understand what the nature of man is versus the nature of an individual man?

Two men, by their very nature (i.e. regardless of age, infertility, etc), can’t procreate. The same can’t be said of a man and woman. Marriage is established according to the basic nature of the relationship of a man and woman, not the procreative abilities of the individuals.

In the case of the Church, it is a little further, in that the couple have to be able to perform the marital act (ordered, per se, to procreation), so the impotent are not capable of marriage. However, infertility is not an impediment.

 

[Cathy]

How so?

So you have no evidence[for the existence of the immortal soul]?

Chapter 10 of Kreeft and Tacelli, 1994, Handbook of Christian Apologetics
takes 30 pages to summarize 25 arguments for life after death. I’m sure you can
also get plenty of responses in a search of Catholic Answers.

Enjoy your search,
Cathy

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Many surveys (polls) have been done with Priests all over North America. Survey after survey has show that the majority of men ordained as priests between 1970 and 2000 were actively homosexual. Not just homosexual in orientation, but actively engaging in homosexual sex with other men.

In fact, several seminaries (including St. John’s, the primary seminary for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles) were actively running out heterosexual men.

Pope John Paul II attempted to bring those seminaries under much better control, but he got sick and since then no one has pursued that goal very actively.

So, what do you expect, when the very men who are leading the flock are themselves homosexuals? Men who do not live up to their vows, and who actively support full “civil rights” for all homosexuals.

The blame for this lies in the laps of the Bishops (who those same surveys showed were not yet in a state of homosexual majority, but getting closer). They refuse to crack down on Priests that are running “the church of whatever feels good now”. They can’t because they don’t have enough Priests to replace those clowns (in some cases I have seen Priests that really were clowns, that celebrated Mass in full clown makeup and in clown suits).

You get what the Bishops support, and what the congregations put up with. I refused to financially support any Parish that did not teach the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead, I would donate the money that I would normally give to the Church to the St. Vincents de Paul Society. I reported two Priests to Rome, two priests that were openly kissing each other and fondling each other in front of their congregation (they were both removed a few months later by the way).

If you stand by, and do nothing, then YOU are just as guilty as anyone that is teaching falsely. You have a duty to report such behavior, to the Bishop and if the Bishop will do nothing, to Rome.

And, if necessary, you have the obligation to stand up publicly and denounce any teachings and behavior that occurs in your church, that do not follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

If you do not, then the sin is on you, just as much as it is on the person that is committing it.

 

[edwest2]

The Church is taking active steps to prevent men who are homosexual from entering the priesthood.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08103004.html

And asking those who lead double lives to leave:

uscatholic.org/news/2010/07/rome-diocese-calls-active-gay-priests-go-stop-sullying-church

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Chapter 10 of Kreeft and Tacelli, 1994, Handbook of Christian Apologetics
takes 30 pages to summarize 25 arguments for life after death. I’m sure you can
also get plenty of responses in a search of Catholic Answers.

Enjoy your search,
Cathy

Cathy, I was hoping to hear your own evidence, rather than having you point to someone else’s work. Never mind.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Church is taking active steps to prevent men who are homosexual from entering the priesthood.God bless,Ed

Prohibiting gay men from entering seminary will help speed us toward a “smaller, purer church.”

 

[StAnastasia]

You can tell us this (and others have), but I, for one, don’t buy it. I understand it, but I find the explanation and rationale weak and very convenient. I don’t fault the RCC for doing this, however. I SUPPORT it. I just wish that they would be less hypocritical about it.

I don’t buy it either. I’ve seen too many couples who lived a number of years in marriage and had children secure annulments. And I certainly understand that marriages come asunder – I don’t fault people for that – so why not call it the divorce that it is?