Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[Darryl_Revok]

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?

While we can go around and around about historical facts and trends, the ability to read the minds of others is denied to us both.

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.

You missed my point. It was claimed that the hereditary nature of homosexuality was impossible because homosexuals A: couldn’t reproduce, and B: wouldn’t act against their nature by reproducing. These arguments are insufficient, because A: homosexuals maintain the biological capability to reproduce, and B: the world is full of people who act against their nature.

 

[truetofaith]

While we can go around and around about historical facts and trends, the ability to read the minds of others is denied to us both.

You missed my point. It was claimed that the hereditary nature of homosexuality was impossible because homosexuals A: couldn’t reproduce, and B: wouldn’t act against their nature by reproducing. These arguments are insufficient, because A: homosexuals maintain the biological capability to reproduce, and B: the world is full of people who act against their nature.

A guy or (girl) like Bruce Jenner still has the equipment and wants to mate with women, so I suppose it can be heredity in his (her) case.

 

[JimG]

Why would a homosexual use a non-H ? It should be against their nature.

Because rather than being “against their nature,” it may be the result of a passing attraction, not a matter of “orientation,” which is a dubious concept anyway.

For example, speaking of a woman who in her youth had a sexual encounter with another woman, but who later marred a man, Daniel Mattson writes this:

“Her encounter with her friend didn’t cause her to think of herself as a different sort of woman than every other woman who had ever lived, because she was fortunate to live in a world that still believed that the only sexual division that existed was the line separating men from women.”

He goes on:

“Alas, the world has since been remade. Today, a young person who finds himself attracted to the same sex is automatically a certain sort of person. He has a label, an identifier, a state of being, a category into which he fits—all courtesy of the culture around us. Our world’s language of sexual orientation is a pernicious trap. The boy who even has a passing attraction to another boy now has likely lost the freedom to view himself as he truly is: a boy who is the same sort of boy as all other boys that came before him.”

From: Is Gay Just Another Adjective?

 

[Peter_Plato]

While we can go around and around about historical facts and trends, the ability to read the minds of others is denied to us both.

So explain to me why I have more warrant for believing that a human being – who happens to be, physiologically, a male – is a “woman” any more than I have for believing a human being is a rolling pin, a mop or a stewed prune?

Your point – like Vatican2Rocks!'s sword – cuts both ways.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

How could it be hereditary? Homosexuals can’t reproduce!

homosexuality is hereditary. they have been created the old fashioned way…by marrying and having children with heterosexuals. it is hereditary.

go to college and take a class in human sexuality. take a class in genetics too but its a harder class.

 

[zz912]

YES I am really catholic. Maybe you don’t know catholics and the teaching of the church the way you think you do…ie the way we actually teach it. Maybe you don’t understand the teachings of the church as well as you think you do. if you study the bible and read the catechism and read canon law I don’t see how anyone couldn’t come to the conclusion I have. Also, if you pray the rosary and go to 2 college level classes: one on marriage and the other on human sexuality, I don’t see how these additional helps couldn’t help you in truth.

I have done everything you suggest, except for the college courses, and do not come to the conclusions you do. Not even close.

if you live in the spirit you are above the law and the things you are saying are law based. which jesus abolished.

So there is no moral law that Christians are bound to?

john the apostle constantly urged people to love one another. if you love your neighbor then you want them to have the good you have. if you are jealous and envious, breaking the commandment of the law–thou shalt not covet-- then you don’t have their good in mind because you don’t want them to have what is theirs, which is love.

I think you need to define “love” and “good” here. Is it loving to encourage someone into damnation and sin if they REALLY like the sin?

 

[zz912]

I have this to add: I think it would be nice to allow catholics who are homosexual to marry each other in the church if the priest feels their relationship is sacramental.

You said earlier that you are a Catholic, and then you post this. Which is it?

 

[zz912]

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.

So your will about who you should marry is supreme, but the will of others over who they marry is not…

 

[at9009]

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.

I think by saying hereditary, they mean that they think there is a gene or set of genes that play a role in homosexuality which would mean that a straight couple could be like a sort of carrier for it which would allow it to possibly be passed down to their children (thus population of homosexual people wouldn’t die out). Now the research on the role of genes is really mixed (depending on which sources you look at) and appear to play a small role.

More than likely the causes are a mix of genetics, prenatal environment, hormones, epigenetics, social factors, environmental factors, probably a whole bunch of things we haven’t even considered. It probably also varies from person to person the relative importance of each factor, but largely having the attractions ISNT chosen.

In all honesty debating the causes of it kind of distract from the main issue (and are irrelevant) to what the person WITH the attractions should do. Regardless of the cause, the Church teaches and will ALWAYS teach that acting on same sex sexual attractions isn’t in accordance with God’s Will. We should focus more on how to offer support as these people try to determine God’s path for them.

 

[zz912]

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.

Why is it invalid? Let’s suppose in your example that the homosexual man fulfills the marital duty to his wife on a regular basis, respects and loves her, accepts any children they may have and raises them. Exactly what about this example leads to a conclusion that the marriage is invalid?

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

I have done everything you suggest, except for the college courses, and do not come to the conclusions you do. Not even close.

So there is no moral law that Christians are bound to?

I think you need to define “love” and “good” here. Is it loving to encourage someone into damnation and sin if they REALLY like the sin?

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-
you’re a literalist
even though you are a recent convert from protestantism you still hold vestiges of the false protestant teachings and their mindset.

have you read the book of galations?

you should read my post history from july 12-13 on this and one other thread.

i have provided sources from the catechism on sacramental marriage and homosexuality, the bible, and the very good book on chastity and its excellent discussion of personal sexual attraction. I have also taken college level courses in human sexuality and one on marriage. I do not take the bible literally and i do not espouse protestant teachings. All of this plus the very learned and experienced advice from a tribunal judge of annulments and a reading of the canon law has led me to the conclusion that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other. it is an act of justice and love.

 

[JimG]

Sexual “orientation” is a social construct of rather recent origin which has gained some temporary popularity.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

So explain to me why I have more warrant for believing that a human being – who happens to be, physiologically, a male – is a “woman” any more than I have for believing a human being is a rolling pin, a mop or a stewed prune?

Once again, a statement was presented–“homosexuals can’t reproduce”—and I pointed out the flaws in the statement. The reproductive capability of homosexuals is a fact. Your beliefs in re: gender definitions have nothing to do with that fact or its presentation.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

So your will about who you should marry is supreme, but the will of others over who they marry is not…

my will over who i marry is supreme based upon the teaching of the catholic church and canon law. all others have this supreme will as well. i did not say that i have supreme will or authority over others who i will not be marrying other than i will not be marrying them and they have to respect my will and my authority on that as supreme. they must have supreme will on the day of their marriage as well just as i must. this is god’s will. MY WILL BEING SUPREME is guaranteed in canon law and if my will is violated on this matter i have grounds of annulment from the very day of the marriage. no one can force me to marry someone i do not love or am not attracted to. In addition, i have grounds for annulment at the earliest opportunity and it will be granted. if my free will is violated, which is what you are saying you have a right to violate, the church stands up for me and says my free will is supreme and because my free will was violated i have the right to an annulment. the church backs up and guarantees that my will is supreme.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have this to add: I think it would be nice to allow catholics who are homosexual to marry each other in the church if the priest feels their relationship is sacramental. I think for our fellow catholics charity is required on both sides of the argument and not meanness. I think activism will not be helpful but rather normal friendship dialogue and letting fellow parishioners get to know the couple, it is likely they will have friends at church and make new ones too. …I know that the parties to this potential marriage in the church would be unable to force their will because even now the catholic church does not have to marry a couple that comes to them for marriage under shotgun wedding circumstances. this is a situation where the priest and community would have to know the homosexual couple and its going to take a long time for the church to declare the relationship to be sacramental. its going to be a long time and i wouldn’t hold out for it. the civil marriages will be proof enough in time. and they should not wait for the church to make up its mind. its going to be a long time and i really truly believe that the church is going to require proof of a sacramental nature in these marriages before the church would agree to extending the sacrament to catholic homosexuals.

You cannot understand the nature of marriage, or you could not write this.

Catholics who want to “marry” someone of their own sex do not have to wait for the Church to make up its mind. The question is decided. It is impossible for two persons of the same sex to contract any marriage at all, and therefore it is impossible for two baptized persons of the same sex to contract a sacramental marriage! It isn’t mean to say it. It is just the truth.
*
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

**§2. **For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.*

Two persons of the same sex cannot have intercourse with each other. It is impossible. Therefore, they cannot marry.

 

[rmartensjr]

homosexuality is hereditary. they have been created the old fashioned way…by marrying and having children with heterosexuals. it is hereditary.

go to college and take a class in human sexuality. take a class in genetics too but its a harder class.

NO, it is **not **hereditary. Genetic studies with identical twins have proven this! :banghead:

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Why is it invalid? Let’s suppose in your example that the homosexual man fulfills the marital duty to his wife on a regular basis, respects and loves her, accepts any children they may have and raises them. Exactly what about this example leads to a conclusion that the marriage is invalid?

he’s not attracted to her even though he is having sex with her.
he is married to her because society would not condone him marrying a person who he is truly in love with and attracted to. therefore it is not sacramental.

then there is the wife’s side. she is married to someone who is not attracted to her and she is being used as a coverup for him to look good in society’s eyes. this is not sacramental.

 

[zz912]

my will over who i marry is supreme based upon the teaching of the catholic church and canon law. all others have this supreme will as well. i did not say that i have supreme will or authority over others who i will not be marrying other than i will not be marrying them and they have to respect my will and my authority on that as supreme. they must have supreme will on the day of their marriage as well just as i must. this is god’s will. MY WILL BEING SUPREME is guaranteed in canon law and if my will is violated on this matter i have grounds of annulment from the very day of the marriage. no one can force me to marry someone i do not love or am not attracted to. In addition, i have grounds for annulment at the earliest opportunity and it will be granted. if my free will is violated, which is what you are saying you have a right to violate, the church stands up for me and says my free will is supreme and because my free will was violated i have the right to an annulment. the church backs up and guarantees that my will is supreme.

You missed my point entirely. You proclaim your opinion that these people in your example have an invalid marriage, based upon nothing more than your opinion. The Church certainly doesn’t teach that. Why is your opinion on the validity of their marriage supreme to their opinion or the opinion of the Church?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-
you’re a literalist
even though you are a recent convert from protestantism you still hold vestiges of the false protestant teachings and their mindset.

have you read the book of galations?

you should read my post history from july 12-13 on this and one other thread.

i have provided sources from the catechism on sacramental marriage and homosexuality, the bible, and the very good book on chastity and its excellent discussion of personal sexual attraction. I have also taken college level courses in human sexuality and one on marriage. I do not take the bible literally and i do not espouse protestant teachings. All of this plus the very learned and experienced advice from a tribunal judge of annulments and a reading of the canon law has led me to the conclusion that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other. it is an act of justice and love.

I think your Tribunal Judge needs to go back to Canon Law School and you are not reading or comprehending the important parts of Canon Law.

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to llegal recognition of homosexual unions.

The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.** In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.**

The above is an excerpt from : CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

From the :CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

In other words…the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I have reviewed your sources (?) and can find nothing that remotely supports your conclusion that homosexuals should be permitted to marry. Your college level courses in human sexuality and marriage were most likely taught by ardent gay activists who promoted homosexuality as safe, normal, and healthy behavior.

Take a look at the document I quoted…and tell us if you think it is in error.

 

[zz912]

he’s not attracted to her even though he is having sex with her.
he is married to her because society would not condone him marrying a person who he is truly in love with and attracted to. therefore it is not sacramental.

then there is the wife’s side. she is married to someone who is not attracted to her and she is being used as a coverup for him to look good in society’s eyes. this is not sacramental.

Feelings of attraction do not determine the validity of a marriage. Otherwise when feelings change sometimes, you would have a basis for declaring a marriage annul due to “feelings”.

And you need to define “love”. The homosexual man does not truly “love” another man if he wishes to have sex with that man. He wants him for a disordered attraction. That’s not love.