Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[JDaniel]

John, I am not gay, and though my wife is bisexual, I am not in favor of gay marriage because it would benefit me or anyone I am close to, rather I am in favor of it because I don’t believe straight society has the right to tell gay society they’re not worthy, even if us strait people do outnumber them 9 to 1.

That said, you bring up an interesting point, and one that has been an influence to my own big picture philosophy, and that is would a kind, just, loving God send one of his children to be tortured for all of eternity for having gay sex? I have come to the conclusion that he would not, not if he is truly a loving entity. I believe in God, in a creator, but I do not believe in the hateful, vengeful, cruel God found within the documents of most organized religions, including Catholicism.

If I am wrong, and God would indeed send an immortal soul to eternity being punished in a manner in which not even us primitive, cruel humans do to each other for actions taken while in a physical form and not fully informed of the ramifications, frankly I would not wish to be associated with a sadistic monster like that.

Frankly, Seeker, you are allowed to do anything you want. You’re not Catholic so, you are under no restrictions - maybe! We are. And, they don’t bother those of us who have thought them through and are not reacting in knee-jerk fashion.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Annulment is not the same as divorce; it declares that there was no marraige in the first place. (or in technical terms that it was a putative marraige; ie; invalid).

Thanks, John, you are quite correct. But, it is a way , under certain circumstance, to get out of a marriage. That’s all I was saying. Rossum pointed it out, too.

God bless,
jd

 

[Seeker2010]

Frankly, Seeker, you are allowed to do anything you want. You’re not Catholic so, you are under no restrictions - maybe! We are.

Well, as I understand it your church would say that I’m destined for hell simply for choosing to not be a member, but that’s neither here nor there and is not the topic at hand. The problem with your statement is that many members of your religion are advocating reducing my freedom because of what your church teaches. In this very thread people are advocating criminalizing divorce and contraception for no other reason then they think God said so. I do not know if it is the position of your church that such things should be legislated, but it would not surprise me to learn that it is.

Now, I can tell you that if divorce were illegal, I’d be stuck in a dead end relationship with a miserable wench. I guess that’s not a real problem, though, I could have just donated enough money to the church to have it annulled. (I know more than one person who has done exactly that.)

 

[JDaniel]

The more I look into it, the flimsier it seems to me that arguments againt gay marriage in the secular world become.

I am Catholic, and the Catholic Church should NEVER, EVER consent to gay marriage, because we know that it doesn’t really exist.

But you know what? We also know that Islam is a flase religion, and Judaism is incomplete, and Busshism is false, and Hinduism, and Shintoism.

Sure, they’re not a matter of morals. But allowing gay marriage in the SECULAR SENSE ONLY does not nescessarily mean gay people are plotting the destruction of the traditional family. All it means is that gays want their unions to be called marriage.

If you ask the average gay persons, you may get a surprise. Most of them outside of the “movement” wish the vocal ones would just “shut up!” They are OK with civil unions - for various reasons.

So fine. Whatever. Not my proplem. Just don’t make the Catholic Church have to issue gay “marriages”.

And yes, I know I’m supposed to look toward the guidance of the Bishops on this issue, but it doesn’t seem to make sense to me, no matter how I look at it. I’m following my conscience.

You don’t have that choice, Marc, unless . . . .

God bless,
jd

 

[Lutheranteach]

Welcome, Lutheranteach:

But, that’s impossible. Such unions cannot be open to life.

Now, I know, from a secular POV, that adoption is a way to overcome this, but, it isn’t really. One only needs to look at the statistics of gay marriages to see this. At least on male side.

God bless,
jd

There are plenty of couples that have no desire, or ability, to produce offspring and are absolutely NOT OPEN to life yet the church offers them everything mentioned above.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If you ask the average gay persons, you may get a surprise. Most of them outside of the “movement” wish the vocal ones would just “shut up!” They are OK with civil unions - for various reasons.

I’m sure that’s a distinct possibility. But as long as they don’t force Catholics to issue gay “marriages”, I don’t care.

You don’t have that choice, Marc, unless . . . .

What does that mean? I believe nothing at all contrary to wat the Church teaches. I merely differ in the application of the teaching, which is frowned upon but certainly does not make me a heretic.

God bless,
jd

Thanks, you too.

 

[Holly3278]

The fact is that gay “marriage” and gay civil unions are gravely contrary to the moral law and are therefore gravely harmful to society. A Catholic cannot accept them under any circumstances regardless of whether they occur in a church or in a court house. If society continues on this immoral path of allowing gay “marriages” and civil unions, we will undoubtedly experience God’s just punishment.

 

[Zeemeermin]

EEEK! I most certainly did not intend too. I was just showing that sometimes our priorities get skewed and we must be careful. Well, I started writing this already so I can’t go back and check, but I think that is all I was trying to say

God bless,

John

No worries, John. Even though we’re disagreeing, anyone who quotes Inigo Montoya is automatically an outstanding human being.

 

[colmcille1]

colmcille1;7015499:

I think it’s disgusting and Un-Christian to consider the idea of legalizing and trying to gain the acceptance of Gay Marriage as part of some “homosexual agenda.” How dare anyone cast down the relationship of people who have been together longer and happier than some married couples?

The Church in its Theology and Faith is the beacon of Light and the Body of Christ on earth. But it IS subject to change with society at least in terms of relations with people. Let us not forget that at one point, the Church condoned slavery because of the Bible and it’s interpretation at the time. It was obviously wrong and it may be wrong here. Homosexuals are not trying to fulfill some “agenda,” but trying to be happy. It is sanctimonious and hypocritical to condemn these people! "Judge not, lest ye be judged!"

REA

Hi rvalin,
Your argument falters when you bring in the notion that I was offering any kind of comparative analysis between heterosexual marriage and gay “marriage”. I never posited any such thing. Heterosexual marriage is the traditional time-honoured norm. It is sacred.
“Longer and happier” is not the basis for an argument in favour of gay “marriage”.
And, as I pointed out to another poster on another thread, there definitely is a gay agenda.
No right-thinking Catholic would buy into the sentimental “trying to be happy” argument you put forward here.
Also, putting slavery and the gay agenda on the one emotive axis is misleading for a number of reasons. It is almost as insulting as reading about the gay “suffering” placed alongside Our Lord’s as I had the misfortune to read when reading a gay Irish writer’s book review recently.
This is far worse than any charge of alleged sanctimoniousness or hypocrisy on my part.
It is downright agenda-driven evil.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Betterave]

The person to which I responded questioned (and possibly endorses) the idea of making divorce, contraception, and remarriage after divorce AGAINST THE LAW. Of banning the practice, and putting people in JAIL for failure to comply. Seems to me that is antithetical to the idea that, first and foremost, we live in a FREE society.

This obviously doesn’t answer my question, and it also interpolates a number of groundless assumptions into the original statement to which you responded.

Perhaps, but what has become frighteningly clear to me is that many people here would, if only they could, enforce the rules of Catholicism upon the rest of society. Some have been crystal clear in endorsing that, others a bit more opaque. That concerns me, greatly.

That’s a very vague statement. There are senses in which it is true, others in which it is not. As it stands it is not a useful or constructive claim.

 

[Betterave]

Happy to.

It means I believe in a creator, a God if you will, and a state of being beyond what we experience here in the physical world. But it also means that I have concluded that religions, all religions, are man-made, and therefore have no more insight into the true nature of God than any of the rest of us do. I do not believe that any religious tome of any religion is anything more than a work of (a) man.

For example, and somewhat on topic, many religions hold that promiscuous sexual behavior has been prohibited by God. So I ask myself why that might be the case. I mean did God really knock on some dude’s door 4000 years ago and say, ‘Bro, write this down’, or did early man, who was likely quite superstitious, look at the actual results of promiscuity (really nasty diseases and death) and conclude that those afflicted were being punished by God for their behavior? I think the latter is more likely, because ancient man did not have an understanding of (or control of) disease like we do now, and surely if God was punishing humans while still alive for behaviors that are not allowed, there would no doubt be spiritual punishment as well.

I have done a lot of research into the topic of Near-Death Experiences, and I find the evidence compelling that not only is there life after death, but that dogmas taught by human religion are mostly wrong. I also have a theory that I haven’t really spent any time looking into, and therefore can’t even remotely begin to document it, that some, if not most of the worlds religions came about because someone back in the day experienced an NDE and got a glimpse of the other side.

Seeker,
You clearly have some pretty stubborn anti-religious prejudices, but you seem like a genuinely nice guy, not totally closed-minded like some people seem to be. Now please think about this simple argument:

A: You have concluded that religions, all religions, are man-made, and therefore have no more insight into the true nature of God than any of the rest of us do. You do not believe that any religious tome of any religion is anything more than a work of (a) man.

B: But you are clearly quite ignorant about what Catholicism teaches, and therefore about our numerous “religious tomes,” as well as about the objective hermeneutic principles informing our understanding of our principal religious tome (the Bible), and ignorant, therefore, also of the content/meaning of that tome.

C: Therefore your claims in A, while they might just happen to be true, cannot possibly be justified for you so far as they apply to Catholicism (and I’m guessing the same would apply to other religions) - i.e., you cannot possibly be justified in asserting what you assert in A.

Does that make sense to you? It seems inescapable to me.

 

[Betterave]

The more I look into it, the flimsier it seems to me that arguments againt gay marriage in the secular world become.

I am Catholic, and the Catholic Church should NEVER, EVER consent to gay marriage, because we know that it doesn’t really exist.

But you know what? We also know that Islam is a flase religion, and Judaism is incomplete, and Busshism is false, and Hinduism, and Shintoism.

Sure, they’re not a matter of morals. But allowing gay marriage in the SECULAR SENSE ONLY does not nescessarily mean gay people are plotting the destruction of the traditional family. All it means is that gays want their unions to be called marriage.

So fine. Whatever. Not my proplem. Just don’t make the Catholic Church have to issue gay “marriages”.

And yes, I know I’m supposed to look toward the guidance of the Bishops on this issue, but it doesn’t seem to make sense to me, no matter how I look at it. I’m following my conscience.

Well, Mark, what does your conscience make of the arguments presented here? Unless you have some response to them, I don’t see how you can claim that your conscience is off the hook. (Conscience isn’t just some subjective thing.)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, Mark, what does your conscience make of the arguments presented here? Unless you have some response to them, I don’t see how you can claim that your conscience is off the hook. (Conscience isn’t just some subjective thing.)

You are correct about the conscience, it’s not subjective.

Holly made a good point. Nevertheless, society does lots of things contrary to the moral law, but they have the RIGHT to do it. As Catholics, we know gay marriages, like a lot of illegitimate bondings (and many within the Church, which is why we have annulments) are not REALLY marriages. As long as the Catholic Church is not forced to issue gay marriages, I’m stillnot convinced that gay “marriage” should be made illegal.

And so, though I’m open to arguments for and against, again I will say that I’m not convinced gay marriage should be made illegal. I think secular arguments ultimately fail against gay marriage. It is a religious conviction, and though I believe it I can’t force other people too.

 

[colmcille1]

JohnCS : re your post #55. Although my name appears above the quote, it’s not mine.

Lutheranteach : Your reply simply demonstrates that you are not looking beyond the immediate self-serving world of gay “marriage”.
Marriage between a man and a woman is geared toward the furtherance of the species.
A loving couple will nurture their children so that they may contribute to society in a happy and healthy way.
The entire dynamic of male/female relations is learned by children firsthand within that marriage.
When you talk of gay “marriage”, you are making the assumption that, beyond the fact that it is a different “parental” set-up, everything else is the same: love, commitment, mental and physical well-being etc. So you just skim over the “parental” bit and say that everything else is fine, let’s go for it! Wrong wrong wrong.
The structure of your argument founders at the first hurdle: “parents”.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[JDaniel]

Happy to.

It means I believe in a creator, a God if you will, and a state of being beyond what we experience here in the physical world. But it also means that I have concluded that religions, all religions, are man-made, and therefore have no more insight into the true nature of God than any of the rest of us do. I do not believe that any religious tome of any religion is anything more than a work of (a) man.

Not bad, my friend (hopefully). Question: what do you know about this “God” and the “state of being” you mention? Briefly (I know, how stupid of me!)
If religions were not man-made, what else might have made them?
Also, if God, Himself, were to come to earth and while here create a religion, what would you think of that one?

Enough for now.

God bless,
jd

 

[Seeker2010]

Does that make sense to you? It seems inescapable to me.

Actually, no.

It doesn’t matter WHAT any given religion teaches, if the ultimate source of those teachings is humans basically making stuff up as they go. As I outlined, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why early humans concluded that promiscuous behavior was frowned upon by the almighty, because it was assumed the earthly consequences were punishments from on high, and given the nature of their knowledge and technology, I suppose I can’t blame them to jumping to conclusions like that.

However, for ANY religion to gain credibility to me, regardless of what they teach, they’ll need to convince me that God himself is the source of those lessons, a proposition which I find extremely unlikely.

If you wrote me a note, and tell me that God told you to tell me to get rid of my fish-tank, you’ll pardon me if I don’t just take your word for it.

 

[Seeker2010]

Not bad, my friend (hopefully). Question: what do you know about this “God” and the “state of being” you mention? Briefly (I know, how stupid of me!)

What do I KNOW? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

What do I think? Much of my beliefs of the true nature of our spiritual nature comes from my study of NDE’s. I find them credible, because so many thousands of people have had remarkably similar experiences. They’re not universally identical, to be sure, but when you ignore the one-offs the similarities are compelling. These experiences tell us that God is not vengeful, he’s not judgmental, and he’s not cruel. Rather, the God experienced therein is loving, forgiving, and doesn’t give a **** which religious tome you subscribed to, or whether or not you even believed he exists at all.

Also, if God, Himself, were to come to earth and while here create a religion, what would you think of that one?

It doesn’t strike me that God is arrogant enough to desire, much less require worship. That said, if he were to create a religion, I think there would be one overriding feature to it: there would be NO room for doubt, NO room for questioning, NO room for debate. He would not give us manuscripts from thousands and thousands of years ago, before we even understood concepts like viruses and bacteria causing infection, that needed to be translated over and over and over again. There would be no contradictions. There would be no vagueness.

There would be no other religions, there would be no reason for it. There would be no atheists, agnostics, or dummies like me who claim to be spiritual but not religious.

 

[colmcille1]

What do I KNOW? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Hi Seeker. May I suggest that you have essentially laid out a good philosophical basis for a personal belief in Catholicism! (I will explain below…)

What do I think? Much of my beliefs of the true nature of our spiritual nature comes from my study of NDE’s. I find them credible, because so many thousands of people have had remarkably similar experiences. They’re not universally identical, to be sure, but when you ignore the one-offs the similarities are compelling. These experiences tell us that God is not vengeful, he’s not judgmental, and he’s not cruel. Rather, the God experienced therein is loving, forgiving, and doesn’t give a **** which religious tome you subscribed to, or whether or not you even believed he exists at all.

I do not know what the official CC stance on NDEs is but what is inconsistent here is that while you readily admit that you know nothing, you seem to have no problem in forming an opinion about what YOU think is the nature of God. Therefore it can be deduced that you actually DO know something albeit based upon your opinions.( And your use of apparent foul language merely points up a human frustration with the limitations of your search.)

It doesn’t strike me that God is arrogant enough to desire, much less require worship. That said, if he were to create a religion, I think there would be one overriding feature to it: there would be NO room for doubt, NO room for questioning, NO room for debate. He would not give us manuscripts from thousands and thousands of years ago, before we even understood concepts like viruses and bacteria causing infection, that needed to be translated over and over and over again. There would be no contradictions. There would be no vagueness.

Again, your opinion is operating freely here. It is opinion because you seem to dismiss any “tomes” which, for true Catholics, are part of their wonderful heritage of Faith. So, you seemed to have progressed amazingly from a laudable “I know nothing” right through to an arrogantly dogmatic assumption-strewn invective. Do you see the sad irony here?

There would be no other religions, there would be no reason for it. There would be no atheists, agnostics, or dummies like me who claim to be spiritual but not religious.

May I suggest, sir, that you retrace your steps to your original starting point the richness of which can be seen over time; this starting point, if guided properly by right catechesis, will lead you to a beautifully fulfilling understanding and wisdom. God gives us great human attributes in order to see and obey the presence of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Seeker2010]

May I suggest, sir, that you retrace your steps to your original starting point the richness of which can be seen over time; this starting point, if guided properly by right catechesis, will lead you to a beautifully fulfilling understanding and wisdom. God gives us great human attributes in order to see and obey the presence of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Colmcille-
While I suppose I cannot blame you for trying to push me towards Catholicism, after all this is a Catholic board, but until such time that you are prepared to convince me that it’s based on the word of God and not man, I’m unlikely to respond positively.

As to the church’s official position on NDE phenomenon, like you I do not know, but I suspect it is not very positive. If the experiences are real they mean that membership in the church, obedience to it’s laws, or even the mere belief in the God it represents is wholly unnecessary for entry into paradise, and that’s not a message the church is likely to endorse, sadly even if the powers that be believed it. That message would likely mean the end of the church and it’s power, and I don’t see them allowing that to happen under any circumstances.

I’ve had a number of religious people tell me that NDE’s were merely ‘tricks of demons’ intended to lead wayward souls into believing the wrong thing, including, sadly, my very own mother. To be frank, if that is true, then God really is sadistic and cruel and I do not wish to associate myself with an entity that is sadistic or cruel.

That said, despite the fact that I give credibility to those experiences, it does not necessarily mean I am right. There are other possibilities, so I cannot say I KNOW anything, only that in my OPINION, they seem to be real. As for my ‘dismissal’ of various religious tomes, it is because I believe they were written by men (or women) who had no more insight as to the true nature of God and spirituality than I do, and I see no reason for my life to be guided by the words of someone who has merely claimed authority that they don’t really possess.

PS… For the record, the ‘foul language’ that I used started with c, ended with p, and had ‘ra’ in between. The filter on this site seems a bit overly sensitive if you ask me. Then again, you didn’t.

 

[Betterave]

You are correct about the conscience, it’s not subjective.

Holly made a good point. Nevertheless, society does lots of things contrary to the moral law, but they have the RIGHT to do it.

Whoa! They have the RIGHT to do it? What do you mean? To do what? Why do they have a RIGHT to do it?

As Catholics, we know gay marriages, like a lot of illegitimate bondings (and many within the Church, which is why we have annulments) are not REALLY marriages. As long as the Catholic Church is not forced to issue gay marriages, I’m stillnot convinced that gay “marriage” should be made illegal.

And so, though I’m open to arguments for and against, again I will say that I’m not convinced gay marriage should be made illegal. I think secular arguments ultimately fail against gay marriage. It is a religious conviction, and though I believe it I can’t force other people too.

But you’re missing the point: it’s NOT just a religious conviction.

Please read:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html