Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KSU said:
As a professed Catholic, you already know that no Pope has the authority to Change Church doctrine. So, why torture yourself like this? If there is going to be a happy change for you concerning this issue, it will be that the person you are so concerned about will ask for and get the grace to change. I hear that it happens: couragerc.org/
Click to expand...
you know, i really think you are a troll
you are intentionally trying to provoke by belittling me about my catholic standing my defense of homosexual marriage telling me that i have to obey the pope. no you are wrong. he is not in charge of me personally. he will never consult with me personally on this matter except via esp…i will never have to get his approval for who to marry or love and he will never give me away in marriage. really you are uncharitable and being abusive to a fellow catholic. stop questioning my integrity and my sexuality. its not appropriate and might be deemed sexual harassment and spiritual abuse if you continue in your nitpicking belittling of my character.
You have been offensive to me because you have repeatedly implied i am not a catholic and that i am not heterosexual when i have repeatedly told you i am in fact heterosexual. why is it so hard to believe that i am ok with allowing homosexuals to marry and actually speaking for them. i know i am right in my judgement and nothing will sway me from it. do you think i am ignorant…i am someone who helped the homosexuals get marriage and i am proud of it.

you must be the bisexual using the two socks as rau and ksu.

i have one thing to say about bisexuals which you will find offensive. but its true. It has been my observation that bisexuals are the meanest people upon the face of the earth and they should not marry anyone. period. you must be feeling left out in the cold because neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals trust you.
 
Rau said:
OK. But what would be the basis for viewing such a marriage as invalid? (I’m not disagreeing that it may be invalid, just wanting to know the basis as you see it.)

And, can you provide a reference to a Church statement saying that “heterosexuals should agree to marry homosexuals”, which you’ve claimed was said.
Click to expand...
I am now taking the position that you and your bisexual troll sock are in need of assistance in attacking the church to break it apart. i am not going to help you. you shall never prevail against the catholic church and whether you realize it or not you shall never prevail against me.

you got what you wanted… civil marriage across all 50 states. stop and enjoy it for a few years. this is as far as you can go for now. annulment is the next battleground if this convo is any indicator and one annulment will not make law for all of the church. it will require thousands. and i don’t think you have the numbers just yet if you are to believed.

if you are straight i would stop needling me with your two socks because i am going to tell the gays how to get what they want. i am a double edged sword you don’t want to provoke any further.
 
Vatican2Rocks said:
you know, i really think you are a troll
you are intentionally trying to provoke me by being offensive to me because you have repeatedly implied i am not a catholic and that i am not heterosexual when i have repeatedly told you i am in fact heterosexual. why is it so hard to believe that i am ok with allowing homosexuals to marry. i know i am right in my judgement and nothing will sway me from it.

you must be the bisexual using the two socks as rau and ksu.

i have one thing to say about bisexuals which you will find offensive. but its true. bisexuals are the meanest people upon the face of the earth and they should not marry anyone. period. you must be feeling left out in the cold because you neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals trust you.
Click to expand...
I hope you find peace, my friend.
 
KSU said:
I hope you find peace, my friend.
Click to expand...
i have peace you don’t
and i don’t think you want the peace that is standing by my side right this moment.
don’t call me friend. when you clearly mean the opposite. we are enemies.
 
Vatican2Rocks said:
I guess we will have to wait and see then because i hold that the marriage is not valid. a heterosexual woman and homosexual man married to each other in my opinion is not valid. in my opinion there is a defect in the marriage and the church did not help matters by saying heterosexuals should agree to marry homosexuals. the church would be responsible for the error.
Click to expand...
Does exclusivity between heterosexuals and homosexuals actually exist? I don’t think this is really a thing for most people, whoever they feel attraction towards.

I am lucky in that I don’t feel any instinct towards the same sex, so I’m not likely to experience SSA (barring I guess sex change chicanery), but I don’t dispute there could be others who are attracted to all sorts. It seems a bit rough that a person who could be momentarily tempted to attraction by others than their spouse should forever be denied a spouse because of a label which other people apply to them.

Oh, you’re “a homosexual man” because of that temptation you get, therefore you are barred for life from marrying a woman you love, leading an ordered, happy life, having a family etc. Does the dividing line have any basis in fact? I think we ought to have some factual or theological basis before we try and decide whether other people are forever past change - although plainly that’s not something we should ever try and decide.
 
Vatican2Rocks said:
I am of the firm belief that a person who is heterosexual should not be married to a homosexual because they are not sexually attracted to each other. I believe homosexuality is hereditary.
Click to expand...
Just to let you know there are cases where the the marriages are successful. There is a even term coined (mixed-orientation marriage). So, I wouldn’t shut down the possibility of marriage, but maybe encourage prudence and really pray for discernment. In any case, the person should be upfront with their future potential spouse and be honest as possible. Plus they really need to determine if they’re called to the vocation of marriage or not (and it’s sometimes difficult to determine that in a culture that pushes marriage as the end all be all to happiness sometimes).

For some, marriage is their vocation and with good support, it can be successful (not to say there won’t be any difficult times though) and for others, marriage isn’t their vocation and their call is to a celibate life (where there will also be trials and struggles). Just my two cents though. 🙂
 
ephesians4 said:
Does exclusivity between heterosexuals and homosexuals actually exist? I don’t think this is really a thing for most people, whoever they feel attraction towards.

Oh, you’re “a homosexual man” because of that temptation you get, therefore you are barred for life from marrying a woman you love, leading an ordered, happy life, having a family etc. Does the dividing line have any basis in fact? I think we ought to have some factual or theological basis before we try and decide whether other people are forever past change - although plainly that’s not something we should ever try and decide.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a spectrum for people and some people do appear to have some fluidity with their attractions. However, there are definitely some people who experience absolutely zero attraction to the opposite sex. I wouldn’t definitely say marriage isn’t for them but it’s improbable (but the person should still be open to God’s Will and try to determine if they’re called to the vocation of marriage).

Side note (minor pet peeve), a person who is homosexual can still live a happy and ordered life without marriage. The celibate life is just a different vocation that we seem to have forgotten about. Too often the connotation is that unless you get married, you will live a life of loneliness that is unfullfilling.But that’s a diffent topic for a different thread.
 
MODERATOR NOTE

Please remember to charitably discuss the issues, not each other
 
Vatican2Rocks said:
I am now taking the position that you and your bisexual troll sock are in need of assistance in attacking the church to break it apart. i am not going to help you. you shall never prevail against the catholic church and whether you realize it or not you shall never prevail against me.

you got what you wanted… civil marriage across all 50 states. stop and enjoy it for a few years. this is as far as you can go for now. annulment is the next battleground if this convo is any indicator and one annulment will not make law for all of the church. it will require thousands. and i don’t think you have the numbers just yet if you are to believed.

if you are straight i would stop needling me with your two socks because i am going to tell the gays how to get what they want. i am a double edged sword you don’t want to provoke any further.
Click to expand...
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=15055

Sounds to me like the double edged sword might be a little tricky to hold on to. Just don’t cut yourself.
 
Vatican2Rocks said:
be careful because you are saying heterosexuals do not have free will to choose a marriage partner either…i think a lot of married heterosexuals who have valid marriages are going to be up in arms with you. they aren’t going to like you saying that they are evil because they obeyed their own will and not god’s for marital purposes. I don’t think God likes it either. just sayin…
Click to expand...
It appears that a lot (~50%) of heterosexuals who freely chose a married partner under your paradigm of “freedom of choice” have later admitted/decided that they made an error of judgement because they have divorced from their partner. Quite a few have done so several times.

Perhaps those married heterosexuals should be up in arms at you for giving them the false impression that their “freely chosen” option of obeying their own wills ended up being not so optimal for them. They should, perhaps, have just flipped a coin and ended up with virtually the same odds of a successful marriage. So much for the value of “free choice.”

Double-edged sword, indeed.
 
Vatican2Rocks said:
i agree that it is not normal for people to be homosexuals yet even jesus acknowledged their existence in his day. they were present in alexander the great’s time as well. i blame it on genetics and that is something out of our control.
Click to expand...
Vatican2Rocks said:
I believe homosexuality is hereditary.
Click to expand...
Research with twins has shown almost conclusively that homosexuality is NOT inherited.

If anything, it is epigenetic. That means there are genetic markers that are turned on or off by environmental factors, including social cues.

Epigenetic markers are not, by any stretch, an insignificant feature of genetics. These turn grasshoppers into locusts, caterpillars into butterflies, tadpoles into frogs, eggs into chickens, human embryos into mature adults and stem cells into skin, bone, muscle and nerve cells.

The question, to be asked and answered, before anyone proclaims homosexuality to be “hereditary” is to what extent epigenetic markers are controlled by environment, by nurture and by choices over generations. In other words, it could be that choices you and I make today and before/during raising children could influence the epigenetics of resulting generations.

This was, by the way, a fact completely ignored by the SCOTUS ruling.
 
Vatican2Rocks said:
I am of the firm belief that a person who is heterosexual should not be married to a homosexual because they are not sexually attracted to each other. I believe homosexuality is hereditary.
Click to expand...
How could it be hereditary? Homosexuals can’t reproduce! 🤷
 
truetofaith said:
So you mean reproducing in a lab?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not necessarily. A homosexual person can reproduce using a non-homosexual person. The mechanics vary in difficulty given the…leanings of the person in question, but biological reproduction is by no means out of the question.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
Being homosexual does not remove the capability for menstruation, or the production of semen.
Click to expand...
I think his point was that if homosexuality were hereditary AND IF homosexuals practiced their “orientation” strictly, the trait would not be passed on and homosexuality - as a hereditary trait - would cease to exist over time.

Ergo, if homosexuality were hereditary (which it isn’t) it would only exist today as a result of homosexuals not being “faithful” to their genetic orientation.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
Yes, but not necessarily. A homosexual person can reproduce using a non-homosexual person. The mechanics vary in difficulty given the…leanings of the person in question, but biological reproduction is by no means out of the question.
Click to expand...
Why would a homosexual use a non-H ? It should be against their nature.
 
truetofaith said:
Why would a homosexual use a non-H ? It should be against their nature.
Click to expand...
The world is full of people who act “against their nature”.

The human body is built to chew and digest meat along with vegetables. Yet some people choose to eat only vegetables, despite the knowledge of their carnivorous nature.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
The world is full of people who act “against their nature”.

The human body is built to chew and digest meat along with vegetables. Yet some people choose to eat only vegetables, despite the knowledge of their carnivorous nature.
Click to expand...
AND how would you know or decide that homosexuals are NOT acting against their nature when they “choose” to eschew (forgive the pun) the knowledge of their heterosexual or biologically determined natures?

Seems a tad arbitrary of you to insist that the human body is “built to chew and digest meat along with vegetables” but that it isn’t “built to” reproduce using what are obviously complementary sexual organs and reproductive systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top