Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter T1Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Consecrated:
If you really believe this is ok, then you are falling prey to the lie of Cultural Relativism.
Click to expand...
I reject your charge of Cultural Relativism. I believe this is the crux of our disagreement…
40.png
Consecrated:
Do you believe that anyone has the “right” to sin? Sure, with freewill, we all have the ability, but does this mean we have a right? If you are truely Catholic, you will know that NO ONE has the right to sin, despite what one might think to the contrary. And NO state should have the “right” to guard anyone’s “right” to sin. Yet this is what is suggested by those who think legal civil unions for homosexuals are no big deal. It IS a big deal. We have more to think about than our own skins.
Click to expand...
Absolutely we have a right to sin. God gives each of us free will and that free will means NOTHING if it doesn’t mean we have the right to difinitively reject God if we so choose. And definitively rejecting God is pretty much the definition of sin isn’t it?

The CCC says:
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
Click to expand...
My emphasis

If God has chosen to give man to ability to reject him, who are we to try to remove that ability? Note, I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to convince our brothers and sisters not to reject God. I said we have to respect their decision (as God does) if they choose to do so.
 
40.png
luvmykids:
How about this one (note the one on gay marriage, legal agreements are a different thing here)
pollingreport.com/civil.htm

And how about this one?
Religiosity is clearly a factor in the recent rise in opposition to gay marriage. Overall, nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) oppose gay marriage, up from 53% in July.
pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=37
Click to expand...
Right. 53% favor Civil Unions. That’s my point. What does the Catholic Church say about Civil Unions?
 
40.png
BillP:
I If God has chosen to give man to ability to reject him, who are we to try to remove that ability? Note, I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to convince our brothers and sisters not to reject God. I said we have to respect their decision (as God does) if they choose to do so.
Click to expand...
I would have to say that making SSM legal is not doing a very good job at convincing our brothers and sisters of not rejecting God, and we are not removing their ability to sin. They can do that as much as they please in the privacy of their own homes. They are doing a very good job of that right now and who’s stopping them?
 
40.png
BillP:
Right. 53% favor Civil Unions. That’s my point. What does the Catholic Church say about Civil Unions?
Click to expand...
It does not say civil unions, it says “legal agreements”. And the topic of discussion is SSM.
 
40.png
BillP:
So are you advocating civil legislation that prohibits non-Catholic divorced people from marrying again?

In what other ways do you want to impose Catholic morality?

Scheduling BCPs as controlled narcotics?
Criminalizing possession/use/distribution of Condoms?
Compulsory Mass on Sundays? (Can people go to their own Church as long as they go to some Church?)
Requiring all restauranst to remove meat from Friday menus?
Click to expand...
I say again that no one has the right to sin. In as far as a society protects by law a person’s ability to sin (even if that sin causes no perceived hurt on another), that society is wrong and is in fact destroying the true rights of the human person.
40.png
BillP:
How far does my obligation to fight “secular humanism” go?
Click to expand...
I agree with felra… to the death! But mostly we’ll be called to fight it by the example of our life.
 
40.png
Consecrated:
If you really believe this is ok, then you are falling prey to the lie of Cultural Relativism.

You have said that you believe in objective morality. If you really do, then you would believe that morality to apply to ALL people, whether or not they believe in it, because it is outside of us, outside of time. It is Truth. It does not conform to us, we conform to Him. This is what objective morality is.

As Catholics, we believe that a perfect society would be one that confroms to Christ and recognizes Him as King. This is the ideal, no? I believe it is, and further I believe I have the duty to fight for it within America, my country.

You speak of rights (thank you for providing your definition). Do you believe that anyone has the “right” to sin? Sure, with freewill, we all have the ability, but does this mean we have a right? If you are truely Catholic, you will know that NO ONE has the right to sin, despite what one might think to the contrary. And NO state should have the “right” to guard anyone’s “right” to sin. Yet this is what is suggested by those who think legal civil unions for homosexuals are no big deal. It IS a big deal. We have more to think about than our own skins.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I actually believe that the only thing binding on our neighbours are the laws that have been formed by We the People, because We the People are the government. So if there are no laws against a sin, then people have a civil right to commit that sin. Committing the sin may not, in the end, make them happy, but the right is there.

And there are denoms of Christianity that have no problem with homosexuality.

And I honestly don’t believe that the legal rights of adults should be circumscribed by how it will affect other people’s children. That is to hold one people’s rights hostage in order to “benefit” others. Equality under the law would frown on such.

And, again, with all the the commentary about who is and is not a Catholic, keep in mind the topic is about secular reasons, not Church ones. None of the above is becoming a popular option for picking a religion, so religious reasons need secular backup.

Pax,
Amy
 
40.png
BillP:
I didn’t dismiss your polls because they weren’t true or accurate. I dismissed them because they weren’t relevant. If you’re arguing that the majority should rule onm the matter of SSM, then opinion polls are reevant.

you’re absolutely right that one poll is not determinative. Have a look at this link:

religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

I should have linked it in my post.

There is more than one poll. And they’re all moving in the same direction.
Click to expand...
This site is but an oxymoron for no religious tolerance, as in all religions are created equal, and what they have in common is no place in the matters of secular governments, because they cannot be trusted. Excerpt from their web page:

Purposes** of this OCRT:**

This OCRT, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, attempts to serve the people of the United States and Canada in three areas.
    • Disseminating accurate religious information: There are many hundreds of faith groups in the US and Canada; all are minorities. We believe that:
    • There is much good and some evil in all faiths’ practices. No one faith group is all good; none is all evil.
    • The historical record shows that the beliefs of religious groups change over time.
    • Within a given faith group, believers hold a range of beliefs that are not necessarily shared by the leadership of their denomination or tradition.
    • We are firm supporters of the principle of separation of church and state. Lack of religious freedom, oppression, and even mass crimes against humanity and genocide are much more common in countries which lack such separation.
    • We believe in freedom of religion, which includes the rights of freedom of belief, speech, expression, assembly, and advocacy. We feel that people should have the right to freely change their religion. However, we recognize that there are limits that must be placed on such freedoms. For example, we do not feel that, in most cases, parents should be allowed to let their children die if medical treatment will assure a cure.
    • We believe that some absolute religious truths exist. For example, the statement “There is only one God,” is either absolutely right or wrong – at least it is if the term “God” is carefully predefined. However, there may be no way for us to know the correct answer.
    • We believe that moral absolutes exist, at least within a given world view. Many people have a set of moral beliefs that are based on their own basic, foundational assumptions about deity, humanity and the rest of the universe. They often assert that these beliefs are absolutely true – and they are – to them. However, the absolute beliefs of a typical conservative Christian will often differ from the absolute beliefs of an average religious liberal. And the beliefs of a Humanist may differ from both.
 
40.png
luvmykids:
I would have to say that making SSM legal is not doing a very good job at convincing our brothers and sisters of not rejecting God, and we are not removing their ability to sin. They can do that as much as they please in the privacy of their own homes. They are doing a very good job of that right now and who’s stopping them?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Making SSM legal is a good as actively encouraging said union by giving the false idea that it is in some way good.

Or it’s kinda like giving teenagers contraceptives “'cause they’re gonna do it anyway, and they have the ‘right’ to do it safely.”
 
40.png
luvmykids:
Yeah, I’ve seen this website too, and they seem to be pretty biased. Wouldn’t put too much faith in their polls either.
Click to expand...
Well reading the website would reveal that they didn’t conduct the polls. In fact, they cited an earlier interation of the same Pew poll you did. 😃
 
I absolutely cannot argue with this person on religious grounds. Does anybody have anything they can equip me with?
Click to expand...
Sure, Religion out, Justice in.

It is an issue of law and justice, and our prime goal is we obey the commands of the a/A uthority over us.

The Authority demands we obey His laws or we will be punished, and we know all His laws are designed to ensure the ultimate end of having us with Him. This means we can not enjoy the fruits of the primary offense, which is the law that forbids sexual relations with people of the same gender. This we are told from the same Source is an effect of the primary evil, as evil probagates evil.

The society that chooses to advance the fruits of evil in it’s policies will also meet it’s justice also.

Same sex marriage is not a marriage, but a cult ritual presided over by the head of all evil. This is so because of the primary rule. Once an alliance is made with evil, God will not prevent it from happening as that will obstruct a person’s free will. But since the person wishes a ritual, and God’s sanction is lacking, the void that good(grace) would fill, is filled with evil.

So an attempt to process the issue into various categories is to no avail, the overriding rule will always show through to insist it be acknowledged. We can choose to make our finite heaven here on earth, or choose an infinite heaven, but we cannot have both. Since earth is temporary, and God promises to give us what we choose, the infinite part of our destiny is spent in the more unpleasant environment of our choice.

The attitude is a somewhat immature one, as he seems to be one lacking responsibility.

Andy
 
40.png
BillP:
Well reading the website would reveal that they didn’t conduct the polls. In fact, they cited an earlier interation of the same Pew poll you did. 😃
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then it looks as if what you think is a downward trend in the oppostion to SSM is actually and upward trend then, isn’t it? Wherever they got the poll you cited, this website is still pretty biased and they obviously didn’t update the poll did they? 😃
 
40.png
a_cermak:
I disagree. I actually believe that the only thing binding on our neighbours are the laws that have been formed by We the People, because We the People are the government. So if there are no laws against a sin, then people have a civil right to commit that sin. Committing the sin may not, in the end, make them happy, but the right is there.
Click to expand...
By “civil right” do you mean “ability”? Perhaps I should have said that no State has the right, or duty, to guard one’s ability to sin.
40.png
a_cermak:
And there are denoms of Christianity that have no problem with homosexuality.

And I honestly don’t believe that the legal rights of adults should be circumscribed by how it will affect other people’s children. **That is to hold one people’s rights hostage in order to “benefit” others. **Equality under the law would frown on such.

And, again, with all the the commentary about who is and is not a Catholic, keep in mind the topic is about secular reasons, not Church ones. None of the above is becoming a popular option for picking a religion, so religious reasons need secular backup.

Pax,
Amy
Click to expand...
As for your statement I bolded above, it becomes a moot point when one considers that everyone has the same rights. It is a form of relativism to say that certain groups have different rights than others. Again, my definition of rights does not include the “right” to sin. If these rights were truely guarded by society, and if society did not make it its duty to guard the perceived “right” of others to sin, no one would have to complain that their children were being adversely affected.
 
40.png
BillP:
Absolutely we have a right to sin. God gives each of us free will and that free will means NOTHING if it doesn’t mean we have the right to difinitively reject God if we so choose. And definitively rejecting God is pretty much the definition of sin isn’t it?

If God has chosen to give man to ability to reject him, who are we to try to remove that ability? Note, I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to convince our brothers and sisters not to reject God. I said we have to respect their decision (as God does) if they choose to do so.
Click to expand...
We have an absolute duty as Catholics to advocate and work against enactment of any laws or “civil rights” legislation which seek to sanction sin.

Have you read those CCC sections that I cited for you about each believers call and duty to partake in the mission of the Church? Do you take this seriously?
 
40.png
felra:
No, they are not bound by the canon of a church that they do not belong to.

I refer you to my signature for the answer to this.
Click to expand...
1st, then I don’t suppopse homosexuals are bound by the Canons of a church they don’t belong to either

2nd, what signature?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
felra:
We have an absolute duty as Catholics to advocate and work against enactment of any laws or “civil rights” legislation which seek to sanction sin.
Click to expand...
Well then I fail to see how you can let divorced atheists Jews, and Protestants remarry.Why aren’t you on some crusade to force politicians to change the laws permitting divorce? Explain how you’re not encouraging them to comit adultery.

Is the Hell than an unrepentant adulterer goig to wind up in somehow different from the Hell an unrepentant Homosexual winds up in? Or are you selective about which sins you want to legislate against?
40.png
felra:
Have you read those CCC sections that I cited for you about each believers call and duty to partake in the mission of the Church? Do you take this seriously?
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen any cites? Where they ir your signature? Cause I can’t see that.
 
40.png
Consecrated:
I say again that no one has the right to sin. In as far as a society protects by law a person’s ability to sin (even if that sin causes no perceived hurt on another), that society is wrong and is in fact destroying the true rights of the human person.
Click to expand...
You’re certainly entitles to that belief. Are you prepared to impose it on non-Catholics at the point of a sword?
 
BillP said:
Well then I fail to see how you can let divorced atheists Jews, and Protestants remarry.Why aren’t you on some crusade to force politicians to change the laws permitting divorce? Explain how you’re not encouraging them to comit adultery.

Is the Hell than an unrepentant adulterer goig to wind up in somehow different from the Hell an unrepentant Homosexual winds up in? Or are you selective about which sins you want to legislate against?
Click to expand...
Now your are asking the bigger questions that should confront every Catholic believer worth their sand. It starts with personal conversion and growing in holiness. Then from there you take up the battle in the shere of influence that you have direct contact with and those other areas that you feel, discern God is calling you to take up arms against. The Church is a Body of believers, each with their specific function and purpose.
I haven’t seen any cites? Where they ir your signature? Cause I can’t see that.
Click to expand...
See post# 209.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
felra:
Your point? Canon law is binding only to those who profess the Catholic faith …sexual lifestyle is erroneous.
Click to expand...
If canon law isn’t bind on those who don’t profess Catholicism then why does a divorced Protestant wishing to marry a Catholic have to obtain an aunnullment then? Ins’t the Catholic Church’s position that if they married without an annullment they would be comitting adultery?

So adultery is okay for non-Catholics?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top