Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[iamrefreshed]

Where in Catholic teaching does it say you should disown your child for being gay?

Who said anything about disowning your kid…besides you?

 

[epan]

I totally agree with you and thanks for providing all those great examples of “not-marriages” the Church would also oppose. I would not have come up with “self-marriage” - it is a brilliant example

If you look at the context of my post, you’ll see that I was responding to the common error of comparing homosexuality with pederasty. To do so grossly misrepresents Catholic moral theology. Seeker1961 was correct to point out that this makes it look stupid.

Catholic moral theology is NOT stupid.

The Church does make a distinction between sexual sins that involve force or coercion (rape, pederasty, bestiality) and those that do not (masturbation, fornication, adultery, contraception, and homosexuality). The first compounds the disordered behavior with the grave sin of forcing oneself upon an innocent person (or animal) - the second is free of this evil.

Anyone who thinks the Church does not recognize this distinction or believes it is fair to make comparisons that the Bishops are careful not to make is doing a great disservice to the church’s long moral tradition.

As far as sexual sins go, masturbation is the closest to homosexuality. In the context of the current debate over marriage, nobody would argue against the notion that the concept of “self-marriage” is preposterous. You can’t procreate with yourself. And there is plenty of evidence that the resulting “single-parent families” are not ideal for raising adopted children.

The arguments would make sense to people, because when applied correctly Catholic moral theology makes sense. It is only when people apply it incorrectly that it looks stupid.

Thanks for the help!

The Church makes some distinction, but in my opinion, suffers from lumping it all together as mortal sin. It really doesn’t matter whether you masturbated once or murdered your mother, it is all mortal sin, and without a perfect contrition, you are damned.

So, while there is a calculus for the gravity of moral acts, they all end up in the same melting pot at the end of the day. I don’t think that this has a trivial effect. I believe, after reading ridiculous posts suggesting the possibility of self marriage, that this melting pot thinking is a problem. A sexual sin is a sexual sin is a sexual sin… is a grave matter. It is all the same, in a very real way. Mortal sin is mortal sin.

I have come to believe that part of the problem the church has faced in being unable to deal with the sexual abuse problem relates back to the melting pot problem. Even though it can be seen that child abuse is worse than masturbation on the one hand, a priest or archbishop is dealt with effectively with great difficulty, because in some sense there is also the perception that it is really no worse than masturbation. Both are mortal sins. Instead of firing the archbishop or priest for criminal behavior, he confesses, gets reassigned, and life goes on to repeat the offense over and over. The problem never goes away for the organization.

 

[Seeker1961]

Who said anything about disowning your kid…besides you?

Yeah in your world "God’ would want Portman to go out and disown his son for the horrible “sin” of being gay.

So you don’t follow Catholic teaching?

Since you were a part of the conversation I thought you might remember it better.

 

[bellasbane]

Thank you for saying it far better than I did.

Thanks! Unfortunately, I’m sure this won’t be the last time we will need to address this issue.

On the plus side, it provides an opportunity to discuss how Catholic moral theology really works. Like Sister Simone said on the Rachel Maddow Show, the trials we face are often a sign that “The Holy Spirit is alive and well and creating mischief”.

 

[paulrxp]

It would seem on the republican side few have strong moral positions, they are like a lief in the wind. The democrats put very little moral value on any thing, only the position that if it feels good do it. I guess that is why you can never put your faith in a politican, put your faith in God.

The Republicans lost their moral credibility long ago. Both parties clearly aren’t guided by moral principles. In the past, you’d never see this parity and positions crossing over on social issues.

So I agree with you. With regards to faith and morals, politics doesn’t have the solutions. Ironically, I think this will help the Church and all religions down the road. If the belief today is government will provide, have the answers, define and guide our social beliefs. There are those who will come to the same conclusion you and I have come to. Put your faith and trust in Gods eternal teachings, instead of his imperfect creation that redefines and reinterprets Gods truths.

 

[bellasbane]

The Church makes some distinction, but in my opinion, suffers from lumping it all together as mortal sin. It really doesn’t matter whether you masturbated once or murdered your mother, it is all mortal sin, and without a perfect contrition, you are damned.

So, while there is a calculus for the gravity of moral acts, they all end up in the same melting pot at the end of the day. I don’t think that this has a trivial effect. I believe, after reading ridiculous posts suggesting the possibility of self marriage, that this melting pot thinking is a problem. A sexual sin is a sexual sin is a sexual sin… is a grave matter. It is all the same, in a very real way. Mortal sin is mortal sin.

I have come to believe that part of the problem the church has faced in being unable to deal with the sexual abuse problem relates back to the melting pot problem. Even though it can be seen that child abuse is worse than masturbation on the one hand, a priest or archbishop is dealt with effectively with great difficulty, because in some sense there is also the perception that it is really no worse than masturbation. Both are mortal sins. Instead of firing the archbishop or priest for criminal behavior, he confesses, gets reassigned, and life goes on to repeat the offense over and over. The problem never goes away for the organization.

I am not an expert on sin, so I welcome any corrections people may wish to supply to what I have written below. This is simply how I understand things:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

That means:

1. It must be a gravely evil act
2. The person doing it must fully understand the nature of the evil
3. And despite all this, the person must choose fully of his/her own free will to do it anyway.

The Church identifies certain actions as gravely evil (the Big 10, certain sexual sins, etc). However, that is only ONE of the three conditions required for it to be a mortal sin. With mortal sins, there is no “lumping” together at all, since each individual’s behavior must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the other two conditions are also met.

As for the gravity of a sin. The Church may not have a sophisticated metric for measuring such things, but you can bet God does. Absolution restores your relationship with God and his saving Grace, but it does not atone for your sins. For that you need to do penance - the amount of which is directly proportional to the degree of evil you are responsible for committing. If you do not complete all your penance on Earth, you will do so in Purgatory. Nobody gets away with anything.

More important than all this is God’s infinite love and mercy. How that works in our salvation should we die before confessing our sins to a priest is beyond me, but it is not something anyone should discount.

 

[epan]

I am not an expert on sin, so I welcome any corrections people may wish to supply to what I have written below. This is simply how I understand things:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

That means:

1. It must be a gravely evil act
2. The person doing it must fully understand the nature of the evil
3. And despite all this, the person must choose fully of his/her own free will to do it anyway.

The Church identifies certain actions as gravely evil (the Big 10, certain sexual sins, etc). However, that is only ONE of the three conditions required for it to be a mortal sin. With mortal sins, there is no “lumping” together at all, since each individual’s behavior must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the other two conditions are also met.

As for the gravity of a sin. The Church may not have a sophisticated metric for measuring such things, but you can bet God does. Absolution restores your relationship with God and his saving Grace, but it does not atone for your sins. For that you need to do penance - the amount of which is directly proportional to the degree of evil you are responsible for committing. If you do not complete all your penance on Earth, you will do so in Purgatory. Nobody gets away with anything.

More important that all this is God’s infinite love and mercy. How that works in our salvation should we die before confessing our sins to a priest is beyond me, but it is not something anyone should discount.

I thought that the Church disposed of the Purgatory idea? What is the status of that one?

I understand what you are saying, but I also see on this forum that there is a lot of moral confusion, in my opinion, among Catholics. They do indeed appear to lump together such things as, homosexual acts between consenting adults, masturbation, child molestation, rape, bestiality, polygamy.

Among many non-Catholics, i see a far clearer distinction between consensual sexual acts, say, and acts with victims. There is a huge disconnect between the catechism and behavioral science on topics such as masturbation. While there is more and more clarity in distinguishing sexual practices in the secular world, progress appears to be absent in the hardcore Catholic world. This may also explain in part why mass attendance continues to decline, priests retire at five or six times the rate of ordination, and the average Catholic voter ignores the recommendations of the bishops.

I’m not sure how the Church can bridge this growing divide in perception and understanding, which appears to me to be separating Catholics themselves from their own Church.

Another issue is that in public discourse, the more reasonable voices are listened to more frequently than the ones which appear unreasoned. When someone suggests that allowing gay marriage will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage, but is unable to find any evidence of that in places where gay marriage has been practiced for years… well then that voice is dismissed. This is like the boy who cried “wolf”. Once a person is dismissed as an unreasoned ideologue, then even the well reasoned points to be made are sometimes lost on the would be listener. It is one thing to object to gay marriage on the known religious grounds, it is quite another to make up unsubstantiated claims about the social effects. If one makes those claims, then a serious listener will seek to confirm them or disprove them. Once disproved by the available evidence, then the credibility of the debater is impugned. This appears to be the case with the Catholic position at times. It is hard to walk when you have shot yourself in your own foot.

I really think that much of the negative rhetoric and inaccurate statements which are thrown around do not serve the purposes that are intended very well. I would suggest, that more reason combined with evidence should be employed with any social argument. Referring to studies by biased privately funded “think tanks” with well known agendas only discredits one. Look for evidence from well established academic, governmental, and professional sources, who have a vested interest in accuracy and openness.

 

[Julianna]

Don’t forget, many of these marriages are also not faithful. Most same-sex relationships do not last long without bringing other into the bedroom. Promiscuity is an open secret in the gay community. They want marriage for legal benefits (tax breaks, health care, adoption rights), not because they want to stay together and only be with each other for life.

I think this senator is in an emotional state, and emotions are the devil’s playground. He was probably shaken when his son “came out” as gay and instead of learning to stand his ground on his beliefs, he allowed his beliefs to be changed because he didn’t want to hurt his son’s feelings if he didn’t approve of his lifestyle (not to be separated from love of the person; you can love a person and still not approve of their lifestyle).

Really? You studied up on the topic, eh? Then explain to me why hetero couples with kids don’t get married with children born out of wedlock without their father’s name? Well, that I can tell you, EBT, food stamps, housing subsidy, education subsidy, child care subsidy, If marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why are hetero’s ignoring it? Don’t forget, many of these hetero couples are also not faithful. Most of these relationships do not last long without bringing other man/.woman into the bedroom, and having more kids out of wedlock. Promiscuity is an open secret in the hetero community. They don’t want marriage because the government subsidies would end. And because they want to want to be free to see other people if the relationship doesn’t work out.

There are 4 sets of gay men in my neighborhood. I have lived here going on 17 yrs. They are still together. In the 17 years I have lived here, 7 hetero couples have split up. All good friends of ours. Our kids grew up with their kids, we had bbq’s, attended girl scout boy scouts, Church and neighborhood activities. Of the 7, 6 split up due to adultery. Of the six that split up due to adultery, 3 went into and out of relationships with other men (yes, the ones who left were all women). One has remarried, but not to the one she had the affair with. The other two are still single and no longer with their original lover. The other 3 of the six, married the man they committed adultery with. The remaining couple split for irreconcilable differences. All had children.

But the gay men are still with their same partner. Interesting.

 

[Julianna]

Do you really equate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home to an adult raping a child??? These things are exactly the same in your eyes? And where is adultery and pre-marital sex on your list of evil things? I notice that never gets brought up in the comparisons-it’s always raping children and animals.

This is one reason why the Catholic Church has so much trouble gaining ground on this issue. Nobody rails against the sins heterosexuals commit on a regular basis-they only scream about the sin that less than 10% of the population would ever have the slightest inclination to consider. Nobody wants to tick off 90% of the population, so they don’t compare the sins they might commit to raping children and animals.

Seeker did you ever notice on CAF, the same who are “disgusted” by homosexuality are the ones who just can’t stop talking about it?

 

[epan]

Really? You studied up on the topic, eh? Then explain to me why hetero couples with kids don’t get married with children born out of wedlock without their father’s name? Well, that I can tell you, EBT, food stamps, housing subsidy, education subsidy, child care subsidy, If marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why are hetero’s ignoring it? Don’t forget, many of these hetero couples are also not faithful. Most of these relationships do not last long without bringing other man/.woman into the bedroom, and having more kids out of wedlock. Promiscuity is an open secret in the hetero community. They don’t want marriage because the government subsidies would end. And because they want to want to be free to see other people if the relationship doesn’t work out.

There are 4 sets of gay men in my neighborhood. I have lived here going on 17 yrs. They are still together. In the 17 years I have lived here, 7 hetero couples have split up. All good friends of ours. Our kids grew up with their kids, we had bbq’s, attended girl scout boy scouts, Church and neighborhood activities. Of the 7, 6 split up due to adultery. Of the six that split up due to adultery, 3 went into and out of relationships with other men (yes, the ones who left were all women). One has remarried, but not to the one she had the affair with. The other two are still single and no longer with their original lover. The other 3 of the six, married the man they committed adultery with. The remaining couple split for irreconcilable differences. All had children.

But the gay men are still with their same partner. Interesting.

Could your point possibly be, that the discussion and potential consequences here have gotten far too serious to base our decisions on hearsay, bigotry, propaganda and emotionally prejudicial stereotypes?

I accept the religious arguments, and those are sufficient. I utterly reject the hatred, bigotry and lies.

I also believe that some well intentioned people, who started being opposed to these pending social changes, based on religious beliefs, have been sucked into the hate game.

And, please don’t paint me as supporting untrue and hateful speech from the other side. I agree that it happens there too. I am quite certain, that we would all agree that such speech from one side does not justify a similar behavior to counter it.

For those of you who base your arguments on negative stereotypes, and propaganda from agenda driven “think tanks”, I pose the questions: has this technique convinced many people of your point of view? Do you see success in slowing down the rate of social and legal change in this area? Could it be that a reactionary and unreasoned stance actually strengthens the position of your opponent, and accelerates the changes which your are opposed to?

Could it be that the change of this Senator’s heart came from knowing his son not to fit into these monstrous lies? That he knows his own son to be a good, honest and ethical man, who has the courage to come out to his own father who might react negatively?

 

[Julianna]

Sure, deny it all you want. Make jokes…that’ll really make it not true.

We can keep our heads in the sand, we can blame the media, we can whine and cry about people “persecuting” us, we can call everyone who disagrees with us lazy, evil and selfish and then we can sit around and watch while what little influence and credibility the Church has left goes down the drain.

Or is that what people here really want? Do we really want to keep it all for ourselves? Just us pure and holy folks?

Darlin’ you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Because the issue came home…Not the first time I’ve seen this kind of switch when people actually get to know gay people away from the stereotypes.

Speaking of stereotypes…

Apparently some people don’t know many straight people who do not fit their own manufactured stereotype.

Breaking News : Some of us have no stereotypes and have direct experience with the issue coming home. Yet we have no confusion between personal relationships, Catholic doctrine, and public policy. We are able to distinguish these and not compromise our relationships with loved ones, nor our civil responsiblity informed by a Catholic faith per the bishops’ documents on Faithful Citizenship.

Imagine.

 

[epan]

Speaking of stereotypes…

Apparently some people don’t know many straight people who do not fit their own manufactured stereotype.

Breaking News : Some of us have no stereotypes and have direct experience with the issue coming home. Yet we have no confusion between personal relationships, Catholic doctrine, and public policy. We are able to distinguish these and not compromise our relationships with loved ones, nor our civil responsiblity informed by a Catholic faith per the bishops’ documents on Faithful Citizenship.

Imagine.

hehe… i think that there was some intended overstatement there, to make a point.

 

[bellasbane]

I thought that the Church disposed of the Purgatory idea? What is the status of that one?

You are confusing Purgatory with Limbo. Here is a good article on Purgatory:
catholic.com/tracts/purgatory

I understand what you are saying, but I also see on this forum that there is a lot of moral confusion, in my opinion, among Catholics. They do indeed appear to lump together such things as, homosexual acts between consenting adults, masturbation, child molestation, rape, bestiality, polygamy.

Among many non-Catholics, i see a far clearer distinction between consensual sexual acts, say, and acts with victims. There is a huge disconnect between the catechism and behavioral science on topics such as masturbation. While there is more and more clarity in distinguishing sexual practices in the secular world, progress appears to be absent in the hardcore Catholic world. This may also explain in part why mass attendance continues to decline, priests retire at five or six times the rate of ordination, and the average Catholic voter ignores the recommendations of the bishops.

I’m not sure how the Church can bridge this growing divide in perception and understanding, which appears to me to be separating Catholics themselves from their own Church.

Another issue is that in public discourse, the more reasonable voices are listened to more frequently than the ones which appear unreasoned. When someone suggests that allowing gay marriage will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage, but is unable to find any evidence of that in places where gay marriage has been practiced for years… well then that voice is dismissed. This is like the boy who cried “wolf”. Once a person is dismissed as an unreasoned ideologue, then even the well reasoned points to be made are sometimes lost on the would be listener. It is one thing to object to gay marriage on the known religious grounds, it is quite another to make up unsubstantiated claims about the social effects. If one makes those claims, then a serious listener will seek to confirm them or disprove them. Once disproved by the available evidence, then the credibility of the debater is impugned. This appears to be the case with that Catholic position. It is hard to walk when you have shot yourself in your own foot.

I really think that much of the negative rhetoric and inaccurate statements which are thrown around do not serve the purposes that are intended very well.

You make many valid points. Just remember, if something you read does not carry the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church, it may contain doctrinal errors. It doesn’t matter how “hard core” Catholic the writer claims to be.

What you are describing is schism - which is always a big problem, but nothing new. I don’t know how our Church leaders are going to handle it today. They keep trying, but as you point out, there are a lot of obstacles they must first overcome.

The New Evangelization makes me very hopeful. It is something we all need to study and understand. I am very hopeful that our new Pope Francis will deal with all the crises and scandals within the Church that are holding it back.

 

[epan]

Sure, deny it all you want. Make jokes…that’ll really make it not true.

We can keep our heads in the sand, we can blame the media, we can whine and cry about people “persecuting” us, we can call everyone who disagrees with us lazy, evil and selfish and then we can sit around and watch while what little influence and credibility the Church has left goes down the drain.

Or is that what people here really want? Do we really want to keep it all for ourselves? Just us pure and holy folks?

Just as a general observation, I would say that history has shown that when the majority is claiming persecution by the minority, in a democratic society, then the opposite is usually true, unless that minority has some disproportionate share of power, wealth, or other influence which could subdue the majority. That differential does not exist here. The claim is often a reaction to the minority pushing back against the majority’s persecution.

Use common sense. Just how does a minority as small as a few percent of the population persecute the remaining 95%? It just doesn’t stand up to reason.

 

[fix]

Maybe because no one wants to teach your kids about it in kindergarten?

Indeed, pulse the gravity of mortal sins vary and the effects on society vary and what is being pushed varies. Pope JPII called the absurd notion of “gay” marriage a new ideology of evil. The current pope had called such things as coming from the father of lies. The heterodox very much want to dilute the truth for their own reasons . Misdirecting the argument is a technique often used.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

rossum

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t exactly say “Though shalt disown thy son or daughter for being gay.” Nor does it imply such.

 

[Personanongrata]

Its a brave thing Portman did and its good to see that when confronted with it in his own family he came to the conclusion that most people are coming to.

 

[Personanongrata]

When I first came to this site ‘Catholic Answers’ I came here to find a way in which I can preach to people in a loving and humble way, why I oppose ‘Homosexual Marriage’ so that they would also oppose it with me, WE NEED TO BE UNITED ON THIS … PLEASE! otherwise the consequences of our actions will be on our children and their children.

I had no idea that the same debates would be going on here amongst christians, at least the majority understand, but those who are arguing ‘for’ same sex relations and are christian please consider these facts.

The city of Sidon was destroyed when lot lived because the people there were practicing homosexuality and other kinds of sexualy immoral acts, so we know where God stands on this issue.

If you are a Christian, than understand that in no way does Christ support the acts of homosexuality (Don’t twist my words, of course he supports and loves homosexuals with the rest of us, just not the acts of homosexuality).

I mean common!, what are we thinking, I thought all Christians would be united on this issue, do you read the gospels and say “well no one mentioned anything about homosexuals to Jesus so that makes it okay”?

The people in the Gospels never said anything, because it was common knowledge, they all knew what had happened to the city of Sidon when Lot lived, had they of mentioned it of course Jesus would have very much objected to the acts of homosexuality.

Ask yourselves these questions -

How do you define ‘Marriage’?

How will you teach the definition of ‘Marriage’ to your children?

Will it be okay for the Law to make up their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and teach it to our children?

If you are married or when you get married, will you care about what that means?

I care about marriage, the word marriage holds great value to me, will it be okay for people to recognise ‘marriage’ as “a contract by law” or “union of choice” that can be easily made and broken and which only has to do with the law and nothing to do with God?

Or would you prefer the word ‘Marriage’ be taught as a very special union of a Man and a Women, under God, until death do they part?

The word Marriage should have nothing to do with the Law, because it’s not a word for them to define and they are Ignorant of it’s meaning.

Just because we fail to meet chirsts standards, does not mean that we should lower them.

People don’t seem to understand that marriage is everything, it’s the basis of our society, healthy marriges means healthy households which means a healthy society.

If you claim that it’s discrimination to be against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ then you have been fooled by lies, it’s actually discrimination to be ‘for’ ‘Homosexual Marriage’ I don’t force my beliefs onto others, so I don’t expect them to force their beliefs of marriage onto me and everyone else through changing the law.

Anyway, I could say alot more but the thing is I don’t know everything about God or everything about homosexuality, but I do know that the city of Sidon was destroyed because of it.

Ever heard of “the straw that broke the camels back”?

I’ll leave you with this, that should shake the conciences of those who support homosexual marriage:

**Grace (age 11) bravely reminded the MN House Civil Law Committee that redefining marriage sends the message that one of her parents doesn’t matter in the eyes of the law.

She asked them: “Which parent don’t I need, my mom or my dad?”

The committee had no answer for her and passed the bill on to the House floor anyway.**

If we give homosexual unions the same rights as hetrosexual mariages, than you are basically saying that they are just as good as one another and that even in a healthy household with a Mother and Father is no different to a household of just a mother or a father, so you are saying that we don’t need one opposite sex parent, which one our mothers or our fathers?

So it’s only right to discriminate against homosexual’s when it comes to equal rights with hetrosexual marriages, because every child has a right to a mother and a father, it’s not right to intentionaly cripple them, and those who have been raised without a mother or father will of course say that it’s okay, because they know no different.

There are many desires that people have, that’s why we learn temperance (control over our desires) so homosexuals should aim for temperance with the rest of us, not acceptance, many of us fall short of Gods glory, but we shouldn’t be saying that it’s okay.

I apologise if I have offended anyone, I am trying all that I can to help people see that to be for ‘Homosexual Marriage’ is a big mistake, and they will not realise until it is too late.

If you know of better words to oppose same sex marriage’s than please let me know, because we should all be united in finding a way to oppose same sex marriage in a way similar to how Christ would.

Thank You for reading
Josh

When DOMA is overturned and gay people can all get married legally, what are you going to do??? I am curious as to how it will affect you personally.

 

[paulrxp]

It really wouldn’t bother me if this is how Portman felt, I mean he’s showing love for his kid, that should be every fathers priority, even over your career.

I think he’s got 4 more years on his term,it’ll be interesting to see if he does runs again. I wonder if he would run if the Republicans asked him to run as an Independent instead of a Republican.

Lets just get rid of representatives, we have technology the founding fathers didn’t have. No need for debates, party antics, costs, perks, divisiveness, personal gain, power, special interest and corruption. Everything is a poll in our society anyway. Every voice will be heard without all the drama. My vote would carry equal weight with Portmans.
During election time I mainly vote for the referendums, voting for candidates is just secondary to me,I feel much more represented when I can choose on the individual issues.