Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[rossum]

The purpose of marriage and therefore its definition has not changed.

So, the purpose of marriage has always been to cement treaties between noble families, as was often done in the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.

You have a far too narrow and inflexible view of marriage.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

So, the purpose of marriage has always been to cement treaties between noble families, as was often done in the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.

How was that accomplished?

You have a far too narrow and inflexible view of marriage.

Inflexible? Yes, because it hasn’t changed. Narrow? Not at all. In fact it is you that wants to limit the number to participants to two.

Why only two? Would the human include siblings and parent-child love?

Your premise 2 is unclear as to what marriage is, so your conclusion does not make sense. Do you have a better premise?

 

[rossum]

Inflexible? Yes, because it hasn’t changed.

Then what is the unchanging purpose of marriage? Be careful, this can be a trick question.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

Then what is the unchanging purpose of marriage? Be careful, this can be a trick question.

rossum

You first:

How was that accomplished?

Why only two? Would the human include siblings and parent-child love?

Your premise 2 is unclear as to what marriage is, so your conclusion does not make sense. Do you have a better premise?

 

[mitex]

Sure. I have no doubt that there is a swath of “conservative” homosexuals who just quietly live active homosexual lives. They are not prevented from doing so. They do not join their vocal and noisy militant gay activists in the streets and in various supportive media. But they will stand with the militants in votes and political action to enshrine SS"M" in law, would welcome the financial and tax benefits, as well as “rights” to adopt children. These homosexuals are not really different at their core from the liberal homosexuals.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. They have or had no responsibility for the downing of the Twin Towers. But there were so-called “peaceful” Muslims who danced in the streets with joy after 9-11.

Search of Grace I’m one of those “conservative” gays. I don’t do pride, bars, or hookups, or radical activism.

And I’m against same-sex marriage and adoption. That’s really judgmental of you. You really have hurt my feelings. I’m not like that at all.

And I’m certainly not defined by “gay” or the activists that do all that. I live a quiet life.

That is really mean and hurtful to me. You’re stereotyping.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Sure. I have no doubt that there is a swath of “conservative” homosexuals who just quietly live active homosexual lives.

Did it escape you that I had the word conservative in quotes, expecting that the nuance is not lost on the reader? That I used ‘who quietly live active homosexual lives’ in the sentence? I think I was specific as to what and how I mean “conservative”, i.e., in a tongue-in-cheek or ironic way.

If you are same sex attracted and believe in things as you enumerated, the post is therefore not referring to you. So, please do not find offense where none is directed (at you), with meaning you have taken neither expressed nor intended.

The post with which you take issue was in reply to Seeker who openly posts that he has changed his life to one who lives the faith as a celibate gay. Hence, I am not also referring to him with my statement, although he seems to have the habit of quickly defending the life active gays choose for themselves, Catholic or not, and moral relativism, swift to accuse that the problem lies with Catholics who are inept in speaking of/about the teaching, in dealing with gays in real life, as well as in discussion of gay issues in forums such as this one.

Terminology and phrases in Internet forums invariably need definition, does it not, especially on the subject of homosexuality and same sex ‘marriage.’

As it applies to our exchange here, what would a conservative homosexual living a quiet life mean? Without " ", to me, you fit said phrase. Your forthrightness and minimum equivocation in your postings, particularly of late, are commendable for one who is same sex attracted. Definitely the opposite of a long time forum poster, also an admitted same sex attracted male, known for long winded, side-stepping replies in rich prose. A direct answer to a direct question would do, but he prefers the non-responsive or ambiguous kind behind verbosity.
,

 

[RCconvert7]

The old “visit in the hospital” story. What is behind that?

Last year, I became very ill, so I had my friend drive me to the emergency room. He stayed with me for at least two hours, maybe longer. NO ONE asked what our relationship was: friend, relative, same-sex partner. NO ONE.

I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years. I dealt with people from the ER on a regular basis. We were taught the rules about dealing with patients, and patient privacy. There is NO FORM a patient needs to fill out that discloses their sexual orientation. There is no one at the front desk that will ask you about your sexual orientation if you want to visit someone, male or female.

Peace,
Ed

“Visiting someone” isn’t what we’re really talking about, though. We’re talking about the right to be at someone’s bedside when others want to deny such presence, such as if the parents of the sick person are against the relationship and the sick person is unconscious, then the parents are the default decision makers rather than the partner, who very likely knows more about the unconscious person’s wishes, and who will not only be denyed the power to make medical decisions in the partner’s stead, but could very well be prevented by the parents from even being present at the bedside.

 

[rossum]

You first:

There is no “unchanging purpose” for marriage. Nothing is unchanging, and marriage has multiple different purposes in different places and times. Even within a single marriage there may be multiple purposes.

“unchanging” is wrong, because marriage has manifestly changed over time; witness all the different versions, past and present, that I listed.

“purpose” in the singular is wrong, because there are many purposes to marriage.

Your turn.

rossum

 

[Seeker1961]

Did it escape you that I had the word conservative in quotes, expecting that the nuance is not lost on the reader? That I used ‘who quietly live active homosexual lives’ in the sentence? I think I was specific as to what and how I mean “conservative”, i.e., in a tongue-in-cheek or ironic way.

If you are same sex attracted and believe in things as you enumerated, the post is therefore not referring to you. So, please do not find offense where none is directed (at you), with meaning you have taken neither expressed nor intended.

The post with which you take issue was in reply to Seeker who openly posts that he has changed his life to one who lives the faith as a celibate gay. Hence, I am not also referring to him with my statement, although he seems to have the habit of quickly defending the life active gays choose for themselves, Catholic or not, and moral relativism, swift to accuse that the problem lies with Catholics who are inept in speaking of/about the teaching, in dealing with gays in real life, as well as in discussion of gay issues in forums such as this one.

Terminology and phrases in Internet forums invariably need definition, does it not, especially on the subject of homosexuality and same sex ‘marriage.’

As it applies to our exchange here, what would a conservative homosexual living a quiet life mean? Without " ", to me, you fit said phrase. Your forthrightness and minimum equivocation in your postings, particularly of late, are commendable for one who is same sex attracted. Definitely the opposite of a long time forum poster, also an admitted same sex attracted male, known for long winded, side-stepping replies in rich prose. A direct answer to a direct question would do, but he prefers the non-responsive or ambiguous kind behind verbosity.
,

What I defend is an individual’s right to choose for themselves the life they want to live. I defend free will-which also defends my right to choose to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

You see one side of my posting life here-the side that tries to advocate more compassionate use of language when talking about gay people, with the ultimate goal of reaching more of them to bring them into the Church. What you don’t see is my posting life on liberal, gay friendly sites defending Catholics and other Christians from language describing them as “villagers with torches” waiting to burn gay people at the stake.

 

[Stephen168]

Why only two? Would the human include siblings and parent-child love?

Your premise 2 is unclear as to what marriage is, so your conclusion does not make sense. Do you have a better premise?

So, the purpose of marriage has always been to cement treaties between noble families, as was often done in the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.
Stephen168;9957649:

How was that accomplished?

You first:

Your Answers to my questions:

There is no “unchanging purpose” for marriage. Nothing is unchanging, and marriage has multiple different purposes in different places and times. Even within a single marriage there may be multiple purposes.
“unchanging” is wrong, because marriage has manifestly changed over time; witness all the different versions, past and present, that I listed.
“purpose” in the singular is wrong, because there are many purposes to marriage.
Your turn.

I don’t see the answer to my questions. Please try again.

 

[rossum]

Your Answers to my questions:
I don’t see the answer to my questions. Please try again.

I answered the wider question, not the narrow question.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

I answered the wider question, not the narrow question.

I just want answers to specific questions to clarify your specific claims.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What I defend is an individual’s right to choose for themselves the life they want to live. I defend free will-which also defends my right to choose to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

You see one side of my posting life here-the side that tries to advocate more compassionate use of language when talking about gay people, with the ultimate goal of reaching more of them to bring them into the Church. What you don’t see is my posting life on liberal, gay friendly sites defending Catholics and other Christians from language describing them as “villagers with torches” waiting to burn gay people at the stake.

Fair enough. We have no disagreement on exercise of free will by each and every man or woman.

Now would you please state YOUR position if same sex ‘marriage’ should be legalized in every state in the country? Should same sex couples that are ‘married’ or in civil unions have the right to adopt children? Should DOMA be repealed in your view? Do you think that Catholics and the Catholic Church are imposing their belief on traditional marriage on everyone? Clear and brief replies would be appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[mangy_dog]

** Was Woolworth’s sandwich counter in Greensboro NC required to sell a Negro a sandwich in 1960? No.**

http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/images/sit-in.jpg
http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/white-only.jpg
http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/fl_1960.jpg

Rainaldo,

You are equating the black civil rights movement to the homosexual activity. You are wrong on many levels. But, just to set you straight.

Homosexual activity is intrinsically evil, immoral and unnatural. Tendencies and mannerisms are not necessarily sinful and are as such occasion for God’s grace. Activity or actualization of homesexuality is evil and sinful.

By bringing in the black civil rights movement into this subject, you are saying that it too is evil, unnatural and immoral.

You are way out of line. You should thank God that I’m not CAF staff. Otherwise I’d ban you from this forum-in perpetuum.

 

[rossum]

I just want answers to specific questions to clarify your specific claims.

I gave you my claims: marriage is not constant, it has changed through history and is changing again now. Do you have any issue with Solomon’s marriage or Moslem marriage being different from Catholic marriage?

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

Do you have any issue with Solomon’s marriage or Moslem marriage being different from Catholic marriage?

Inflexible? Yes, because it hasn’t changed. Narrow? Not at all. In fact it is you that wants to limit the number to participants to two.

I gave you my claims: marriage is not constant, it has changed through history and is changing again now.

No, you claimed that

Two human beings who love each other should be allowed to marry.

Yet, you can’t tell me if there are limits to the two people in love or the number of people in love and why?

So, the purpose of marriage has always been to cement treaties between noble families, as was often done in the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.

Yet you can’t explain how the “cementing” happened?

 

[Seeker1961]

Fair enough. We have no disagreement on exercise of free will by each and every man or woman.

Now would you please state YOUR position if same sex ‘marriage’ should be legalized in every state in the country? Should same sex couples that are ‘married’ or in civil unions have the right to adopt children? Should DOMA be repealed in your view? Do you think that Catholics and the Catholic Church are imposing their belief on traditional marriage on everyone? Clear and brief replies would be appreciated.

Thank you.

I don’t believe that a committed Catholic can marry someone of the same gender or have a relationship with someone of the same gender-whether it is legal to do so or not. I do not believe that the Church should be expected to change Her position on this.

As to issues of civil law, I leave that to the courts.

Brief enough for you?

I don’t know if you meant to sound like you were grilling me, but it sure felt like it!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I don’t believe that a committed Catholic can marry someone of the same gender or have a relationship with someone of the same gender-whether it is legal to do so or not. I do not believe that the Church should be expected to change Her position on this.

As to issues of civil law, I leave that to the courts.

Brief enough for you?

I don’t know if you meant to sound like you were grilling me, but it sure felt like it!

Your reply is brief but half-responsive. I will not repeat the questions but if you wish to give as close to yes-no replies to them, I would welcome it.

Please forgive the grilling like inquiry. This stemmed from the discussion on conservative v liberal homosexuals. It is refreshing to read accounts of returned gay Catholics like you who turned around to support the Catholic position on homosexual behavior. Still, I sense that it is difficult for you to come right out against SS"M" and gay couples adopting children minus the political and legal realities in our society. I believe that said realities do not and should not wash away our personal beliefs and social concerns.
,

 

[mangy_dog]

You ***feel ***that it’s an opinion? Okay, I feel your position is an opinion.

It’s a good thing that the Catholic Church is not ruled by your “feelings and opinions”.

 

[Seeker1961]

Your reply is brief but half-responsive. I will not repeat the questions but if you wish to give as close to yes-no replies to them, I would welcome it.

Please forgive the grilling like inquiry. This stemmed from the discussion on conservative v liberal homosexuals. It is refreshing to read accounts of returned gay Catholics like you who turned around to support the Catholic position on homosexual behavior. Still, I sense that it is difficult for you to come right out against SS"M" and gay couples adopting children minus the political and legal realities in our society. I believe that said realities do not and should not wash away our personal beliefs and social concerns.
,

I sense it is difficult for you not to demand responses that conform to your exact specifications.

I am a Catholic who happens to be gay. I have made a choice for myself that came from the witness and support of wonderful people who were more interested in my relationship to God than the “political and legal realities in our society”. No matter what civil society approves of, I answer to God and God alone for my behavior and choices.

If civil society chooses to make civil marriage legal for gay couples, it won’t change my life one bit, I still won’t be partnering up. Since I always thought the best part of being gay was being able to leave the whole raising children to the other 97% of the population, I’ve really never understood the drive to adopt. It would be ideal if every child in this nation had the kind of wonderful parents I had-parents who loved me unconditionally. Of course, they did have a gay child. Maybe they shouldn’t have been allowed to be parents because of that.