A
AgingCatholic
Guest
I try to love everyone, but I’ll freely admit it comes a lot easier in some cases than others…
- Status
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Excellent points and excellent post. Let me begin by saying I think I agree completely.Besides, would we even be debating on this thread if contraception, no-fault divorce, and abortion were not incrementally accepted into our intellectually advanced society?
IMO, this is just the latest development in our selfishness and idolatry. Only now, G-d won’t have to send hellfire, banish us to wandering, or send snakes to the unfaithful – we’re perfectly capable of doing it to ourselves now!
Whatever happened to common sense? I miss it!
Secular society doesn’t see those things as a problem. Personally, I think therein lies the problem. Lack of history, for one, and not thinking it through to its logical conclusion are a huge piece.
I think what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong is that we need to do this debate on a secular level with our faith as the foundation.
If that is not your point, please forgive me. It is my point. I talk about contraception from a purely secular point of view, when I can. I am not going to convince an atheist that contraception is wrong simply with the words, “God says so.” My argument must be rooted in reason to work. As Catholics we know that theology is based on both faith and reason. We need to use both, reason, very publicly, and faith very quietly. We need to let “the still, small voice” do the work.
If I am misunderstanding you, please forgive me. That is what I took from your post.
K
kinderbueno
Guest
Yes, I am…as JPII would call it – the other wing (of reason). You used to be able to count on government to be thinking 50-100 years down the road. But we live in such an on-demand, we want it all, we want it now society, that it seems no one truly stops to think about the long term consequences. I just pray our next president has the long term future in mind.
I personally have faith that the Church left to us by Jesus himself via St. Peter ("…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…") will be supported by reason in this debate – but we must find common ground – hopefully reason will help remove the Bible-Thumping stigma from those on the common sense (IMO) side of the debate. We can’t count on the dissenting opinion holders to respect things they don’t understand. I’m not at all saying that we water down our beliefs, but in order to have unbelievers believe, we must speak in their tongues.
(Somewhat of an aside, one of my favorite lines comes from the movie Jurrasic Park’s Dr. Ian Malcolm, “…your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”)
As I teach my CCD kids, there is a chasm between good and evil, it’s incrementalism (desensitization) that bridges that gap to make bad not look like that much of a leap. (Resensitizing) Incrementalism can work as a force for good, too!
We must not lose sight of the big picture and the sum product of our selfishness – abortion, sex w/o consequences, etc. cannot be separated from this topic, they’re just different fronts of the same war. I understand it is frustrating when trying to reason your way through the gay “marriage” debate when the other side argues from a very myopic, selfish, and emotional premise. But, IMO, we stand to further alienate when we bring a particular belief system to the forefront. Be confident that yours is built on a solid foundation; pray, do penance, then speak with charity and reason.
Easier said than done, but we must endure.Peace, -Mike
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Aside from your understanding of what marriage is, for all time, until the *Goodridge v. Public Health *decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, marriage had a definition. It was the union between the sexes and never within the sexes. Before Margaret Marshall, the Chief Judge of the SJC and an advocate for the homosexual agenda, could write her opinon in that case, she had to re-define marriage to a union between anybody. No judge has a right to re-define any social or political understanding and Marshall should have recused herself from the case.
Under the traditional definition of marriage, restricting marriage to a man and a woman is no violation of the Equal RIghts Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was what the case was decided on. Every citizen had the same right as every other citizen – the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex who would have them. That homosexuals choose not to avail themselves of that right is a decision they make. Their problem rises from the fact they are not willing to live with the consequences of their decision.
No constitution grants any right based on sexual preference or sexual gratification. The system has clearly been perverted and the civil contract between the state and the parties is irrelevant, as is the fact it is a religious sacrament.
S
snowpiece
Guest
Marriage is a civil right.
In the Catholic teachings, marriage is a sacrament.
In the United States, we are supposed to separate our churches from our government in order to protect each from the influence of the other.
If your argument is about religion, it has no place in our government. Just like our government shouldn’t come into your Church and dictate what ceremonies it can or cannot perform.
Our State Constitution (as I am also Californian) expressly states that you cannot discriminate against a group based on sexual orientation. So, access to public institutions such as marriage cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation alone. Prop 8 had to amend the State Constitution to take this specific right away from a small, formerly protected, minority. Nobody wanted to force Catholics to perform gay weddings. So, why did Catholics have to force the rest of us from performing gay weddings in our City Halls? No matter how weird or offensive or troubling Catholic weddings or marriages might seem to them- nobody was trying to take them away from you. So, why eliminate this right for others?
I’ve been paying close attention to this debate… still haven’t heard ONE GOOD REASON why same sex couples shouldn’t have the right to civil marriage. The actual teaching of the Catholic church (which you can see easily at the FAQ on dignity usa’s web site) says we should respect the rights of all people. It’s time to start practicing what is preached.
In the Catholic teachings, marriage is a sacrament.
In the United States, we are supposed to separate our churches from our government in order to protect each from the influence of the other.
If your argument is about religion, it has no place in our government. Just like our government shouldn’t come into your Church and dictate what ceremonies it can or cannot perform.
Our State Constitution (as I am also Californian) expressly states that you cannot discriminate against a group based on sexual orientation. So, access to public institutions such as marriage cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation alone. Prop 8 had to amend the State Constitution to take this specific right away from a small, formerly protected, minority. Nobody wanted to force Catholics to perform gay weddings. So, why did Catholics have to force the rest of us from performing gay weddings in our City Halls? No matter how weird or offensive or troubling Catholic weddings or marriages might seem to them- nobody was trying to take them away from you. So, why eliminate this right for others?
I’ve been paying close attention to this debate… still haven’t heard ONE GOOD REASON why same sex couples shouldn’t have the right to civil marriage. The actual teaching of the Catholic church (which you can see easily at the FAQ on dignity usa’s web site) says we should respect the rights of all people. It’s time to start practicing what is preached.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
There is your reason. Why a “couple?” Why are there 2 and only 2 people in a marriage?
S
snowpiece
Guest
Please expand! What does this mean about two people? Your statement is not clear! Please explain so that I can understand and respond!
L
LittleDeb
Guest
It isn’t a statement. I asked a question. ‘Why are there 2, and only 2 people, in marriage?’ Please answer that question.
S
snowpiece
Guest
Why are there two, and only two people, in marriage? I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me what you want to say instead of playing games? I can understand you better when you are simply straightforward and honest.
G
GreenLantern
Guest
I’m curious but is there an argument out there that argues that gay marriage should be legal but incestual marriage and polygamy should be illegal?
S
snowpiece
Guest
Again, you are not being straightforward or honest. You may want me to ask why you compare these things. Sadly, I realize that you appear to be bigoted. An anonymous talk on a Catholic forum will not make you aware of this ignorance. You have to be willing to let go of your ignorance, to accept people who do not live exactly as you do.
The Church’s explicit doctrine tells you to love and respect your glbtq brothers and sisters. And yet you tell them they are disordered- even while the Church says that homosexuality “may or may not” be a choice. Shame on you. With the Church’s narrow idea of ethical sexual expression- I’m sure that every single faithful Catholic has been guilty of an equally grave sin. How dare you refuse compassion to the glbtq community.
Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto Me.
The Church’s explicit doctrine tells you to love and respect your glbtq brothers and sisters. And yet you tell them they are disordered- even while the Church says that homosexuality “may or may not” be a choice. Shame on you. With the Church’s narrow idea of ethical sexual expression- I’m sure that every single faithful Catholic has been guilty of an equally grave sin. How dare you refuse compassion to the glbtq community.
Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto Me.
G
GreenLantern
Guest
If this post was not addressed to me, then I apologize. But that’s the impression I got so I guess I’ll reply.
If you want to do it go ahead.
That means I want to **reduce **my ignorance.
I’ll reiterate my question. What is the justification for gay marriage to be legal but incestual marriage and polygamy to not be legal?
This is my first post on this thread and one of the first posts I made here on the forums in months.
It’s an honest question. I am honestly curious.
.
If you want to do it go ahead.
How?
I asked a question.
That means I want to **reduce **my ignorance.
Very true.
No I didn’t.
Correct.
I asked a question.
I’ll reiterate my question. What is the justification for gay marriage to be legal but incestual marriage and polygamy to not be legal?
S
snowpiece
Guest
You don’t realize that comparing incest to homosexuality is bigoted. You are so ignorant that you can’t see how offensive and obscene that is.
B
Barclay
Guest
Hi all, interesting thread. Well… I am not in favour of Gay Marriage. Its totally against of nature’s law. It should be banned.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
It’s simple. The Church teaches that homosexuality is ‘disordered’. It’s a sin to engage in homosexual acts. The homosexual is to live a chaste life, and in this way, can overcome his disordered appetites and gain salvation. If these acts are disordered and therefore sinful, how the heck could any Catholic defend gay marriage??? The marriage would be based on sin, and would be incapable of forming a sacrament.Hi all,
I’m from CA, where we barely got Proposition 8 (restoring the true definition of marriage) passed
Here’s where I’m in a bind: many of my friends, who are Catholic (or at least refer to themselves as such) voted against Prop 8 and are very unhappy with the results. For example, one of my friends writes as her status on Facebook, “[name of person] knows Jesus would never deny a human right & people that use the Bible to say yes on Prop 8 show their ignorance and uncompassionate heart for human rights.”
So, I’m working on ways to present what the Church teaches about marriage and homosexuality (and gay “marriage”). The primary argument against Prop 8 frames marriage as an equality and civil rights issue.
Here’s my question though: is marriage definable as a “human right”? I’m struggling to come up with a definite answer from a Catholic perspective. Also, if anyone has any general ideas for ways to explain TRUE Catholic teaching in this regard, I’d appreciate it.
S
snowpiece
Guest
Heterosexual impulses outside of marriage are also to be ignored so that one can live a chaste life until marriage. The better question is- why does the Church deny homosexuals the opportunity to live in the sacrament of marriage? Many homosexual couples are life partners who stay committed to each other for the same length of time as heterosexual married couples. They are no less valid, no less capable of love, no less capable of loyalty. Why does the Church deny them this sacrament which they have clearly proven that they are already living?
M
mary3399
Guest
The answers to this question can be found in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. www.nakedwithoutshame.com
has tapes you can buy for $6.00. Also, look up Christopher West’s teaching on Theology of the Body (TOB).
The one flesh union between one man and one woman is found is Genesis 2. The Bible, which is the inspired Word of God, begins with a marriage and ends with a marriage of the Lamb. Marriage is a sacrament founded by God and not man. We must follow His teaching, and not what we think a marriage should be.
There is no such thing as “gay” marriage. Marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
Also, we are called to love the sinner but not the sin.
We are called to love all sinners, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. But we are called not to love the sin. We must stand and speak against what is not Truth.
has tapes you can buy for $6.00. Also, look up Christopher West’s teaching on Theology of the Body (TOB).
The one flesh union between one man and one woman is found is Genesis 2. The Bible, which is the inspired Word of God, begins with a marriage and ends with a marriage of the Lamb. Marriage is a sacrament founded by God and not man. We must follow His teaching, and not what we think a marriage should be.
There is no such thing as “gay” marriage. Marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
Also, we are called to love the sinner but not the sin.
We are called to love all sinners, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. But we are called not to love the sin. We must stand and speak against what is not Truth.
C
CradleCath
Guest
Sorry, I don’t know how the person you are replying to feels, but the epithets “bigot” & “homophobe” mean very little to me, anymore. They have been so abused by the gay activists that they have lost their sting.
I accept people who do not “live exactly as I do”. But, I don’t have to accept their sin, neither do they have to accept mine. Jesus never ONCE said, “Go, you are forgiven & BTW., keep right on commiting this sin you’ve just confessed to me”.
I really wish that people could get a handle on the phrase, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. Adulterers are also children of God & should be treated as such…but who makes a case that their sin should be deemed “just fine & normal”?
.
How dare you accuse me of disrespect for my “glbt brothers & sisters”. SEE ABOVE re hate the sin & love the sinner.
The cause of homosexuality has nothing to do with the fact that PRACTICING same is a sin. It makes no difference whether gays are “born that way”, nurtured in such a way to disorder their sexual attractions, became gay as a result of being victims of pederasty, or choose the orientaion. It’s the ACT that the Church & Scritpure teach us as wrong.
As far as “disordered”, gays sexual attraction is not ordered toward completing themselves. It is not ordered toward procreating, it is ordered toward a rather narcissistic end, sex with their mirror image. It’s only purpose is pleasure & it’s harmful to both the spiritual & physical person.
BTW., One of my brothers is diabetic. He does NOT claim that this is “normal”. He knows that his system is NOT ORDERED toward processing sugar. IOW., it is disordered.
Whether we have been guilty of an equally grave sin, or not…the difference is that very few of us try to say that the evil we do is “O.K.” BTW., it’s very hard to feel compassion for people who seem to be so steeped in **self-**pity
Absolutely!!! But I think the Pederasts within our clergy must have forgotten that.
G
GreenLantern
Guest
In what way do I meet the dictionary definition of “bigot”?
I am asking a simple question.
How?
I understand why people find it offensive but I want to know why. I know of people who believe that incestual marriage and polygamy should be legal in addition to same-sex marriage. Are they “bigots” because they equate incestual marriage and polygamy with gay marriage?
Sweden allows marriage between siblings who share one parent.
Tell me why Sweden should change it’s law and forbid incestual marriage while allowing same-sex marriage.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
You’re asking a very important question that the homosexual lobby/activists do not want to discuss, specifically because it’s on their agenda.
When homosexuals first began agitating, it was for job rights, housing rights and things they had a right to agitate for. People opposed to them warned that, once those rights were achieved, they’d be after other ‘rights’ including a ‘right’ to marry. Homosexuals said, “Oh, no! We’ll never ask for that.” But of course they have and the incest/polygamy/polyamory agenda is just around the corner. Do not doubt for a minute the homosexual lobby will be in the courts, demanding ‘rights’ they haven’t invented yet, long after you’re in the grave. They will include the ‘right’ to go into Catholic and other religious schools and teach kids that Heather has two mommies. And other things.
- Status