The Purpose of Marriage

[Brendan_64]

The one component that has always existed in marriage is procreation. A marriage that didn’t procreate was a failed marriage…

Were Mary and Joseph married? Was their’s a failed marriage?

 

[inocente]

Thank you for your opinions.

And thank you for your opinions.

 

[Ion]

The majority in your parliament does not share your morality.

That your wishful thinking, trying to suggest that the majority of people think like you do. There are all sort of laws ans rules and on top of them interests. There is something disfunctional in the system as people beliefs do not motivate politicians actions anymore. On the other hand this is why we go to the pools.
There is a vacuum left by the marginalization of religion, and that is the legislative disfunctionality used by homosexuals to push their agenda. Taking out religion and puting nothing in place then it’s obvious, results somethin disfunctional. The majority of people do not share your morality; until now this was not a great concern as you guys kept your privacy, but going public and asking people to pretend what you pretend that is different.

Strange question. If the purpose of state recognition was to obtain state benefits then everyone would go for the simpler civil partnership and no one would get married. That’s obviously not the case, so if it’s not the case for heterosexuals why would it be any different for homosexuals?

You will need to explain how a civil marriage safeguards a family, and why that safety should be withheld from some but not others.

Here you suggest hetero is identical with homo which is obvious false.

The purposes of a marriage is whatever the spouses believe about their marriage,
but unless the traditional vows are superfluous nonsense, they are probably what most people starting out on married life hope for in purpose: to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death parts us.

The purpope of THEIR marriage is whatever the spouses believe about their marriage
Thats the falacy of your reason, if two make of joke of their marraige then thats what any marriage is. No values and no dignity and no purpose. Only feel good now for as long as it goes.
And as I can see your arguments are only an empty concatenation of words made to give the ilusion that you have a point, like a kid in a candy store willing to say anything to his mom to get the candy he wants.

 

[Gidge]

Thank you for your opinions.

And thank you for your opinions.

And thank you both for your opinions

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Genesis 19 New American Bible

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

EZEKIEL: 16: 49-50 “Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.”

When Jesus was searching for a likeness of evil to compare with the refusal of people to hear the gospel, he chose the sodomites of Sodom and Gomorrah as the next-to-worst sinners to be dealt with on judgment day.

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

Paul preaches sodomy as a sin against the natural law in Romans 1:18-32:

“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

I Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Jude: 5-7
“I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

 

[josh987654321]

Thank you for your explanation of your position, Josh.

My pleasure

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[_Angelino]

I always scratch my head when I see these same Biblically-based and historical justifications against gay marriage that are trotted out with a complete blind eye to their context:

That Mosaic law (including Leviticus) is binding on Christians
It isn’t. This is why we can eat pork, men don’t have to be circumcised, and women can wear pants. This has been settled since the Council of Jerusalem.

That Sodom was punished because of the presence of gay sex within the city
It wasn’t. The punishment had to do with the townsmen’s hatred of outsiders and their insistence on dominating and subjugating outsiders through en mass gang rape.

That Paul preached against homosexuality as we know it today
He didn’t. He preached against pederasty and promiscuity.

That, assuming Paul was talking about the modern notion of homosexuality, we should take his words literally with no attention paid to the context of the time in which he was writing
He also returns a runaway Christian slave to his Christian master in the Letter to Philemon. I always enjoy asking my Biblical literalist friends if this means Christians should support slavery.

That the Church has always said that the purpose of marriage is procreation
This first appeared in the Council of Trent. Both Paul (“it is better not to marry”) and Augustine counseled it as a remedy for concupiscence (a way of legitimizing and satisfying male sexual desire in a non-sinful way).

That while perhaps the reasons for marriage have evolved, those type of people who able to enter into marriage has never changed
See the 12th century institution of priestly celibacy.

That the Church can’t be wrong in characterizing homosexuality as some sort of scientifically-based biological disorder
Galileo anyone?

That “natural law” requires marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman
Nearly every ancient society, practiced polygyny from the Persians, to the Indians, to the Chinese, to the Jews of the Old Testament.

And, my favorite, The Church has never redefined it’s stance on a settled moral issue of this magnitude
I’ll set aside for the moment that this argument presupposes that the Holy Spirit cannot continue to reveal and refine the Truth to us. That’s too philosophical to come to any consensus.

How about a question that is more concrete? Which Council was wrong: 3rd Lateran when it expressly authorized certain forms of slavery, or Vatican II when it expressly condemned all of it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Aangelino

So what is your point in all these matters? That the Catholic Church is wrong and your criticisms of the Church must be right?

By the way, how do you get Paul condemning pederasty but not sodomy out of this passage below? Please be specific, as you seem to have insights into Paul that are not shared by the Church.

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” Romans 1

And why are you a Catholic if you find the Church to be so chronically wrong at every turn?

And why are you so right when you find the Church to be so wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

I always scratch my head when I see these same Biblically-based and historical justifications against gay marriage that are trotted out with a complete blind eye to their context:

That is why we Catholics ought never “trot out” Bible verses outside of the lens of the Church which gave us these Bible verses.

We do not use Scripture to glean our morality. Rather, the Scriptures support the teachings of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

That “natural law” requires marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman
Nearly every ancient society, practiced polygyny from the Persians, to the Indians, to the Chinese, to the Jews of the Old Testament.

I don’t think you understand what natural law is. You seem to be conflating it with “that which every ancient society” has practiced.

They are not the same thing, Angelino.

 

[_Angelino]

Aangelino

So what is your point in all these matters? That the Catholic Church is wrong and your criticisms of the Church must be right?

My point is that the Catholic understanding of marriage is not as static as is often suggested. Nor is the understanding of homosexuality.

By the way, how do you get Paul condemning pederasty but not sodomy out of this passage below? Please be specific, as you seem to have insights into Paul that are not shared by the Church.

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” Romans 1

First, this is, without a doubt, the strongest Biblical verse for a teaching against homosexual acts. Here are my thoughts, informed by Catholic theologians from both sides of this issue and formed in the best conscience I know how:

1. Taken in context with the verses preceding it (as you quoted in your previous post), Paul is condemning paganism/idolatry and the promiscuous rituals that, in his time, went with it.
2. Homosexual acts among pagans/Romans of that era was had 2 defining characteristics: pederasty and promiscuity. He condemns those, not the modern understanding of homosexuality.
3. Finally, perhaps the strongest point for the notion that Paul should be understood in the historical context in which he lived is Paul’s returning of a runaway Christian slave to his Christian master in the Letter to Philemon. If Paul is to be understood literally, without any historical context, that seems to be fairly compelling support for the legitimization of slavery.

And why are you a Catholic if you find the Church to be so chronically wrong at every turn?

I think characterizing my views as the Church being “wrong” and “at every turn” is a bit much. My conscience, guided by the whole of Catholic teaching, and by faith and reason, dictates that I sincerely question arguments when they presuppose that the Holy Spirit cannot continue to reveal and refine the Truth to us. And, “at every turn” is more like, “at this turn.”

As to why I am Catholic?

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Respectfully,

Angelino

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angelino

**First, this is, without a doubt, the strongest Biblical verse for a teaching against homosexual acts. Here are my thoughts, informed by Catholic theologians from both sides of this issue and formed in the best conscience I know how: **

By what authority do you get to substitute your “conscience” for the teachings of the Church? Are you aware that there is an official view of same-sex relations that cannot be glossed over by simply saying you rely on “Catholic theologians from both sides of this issue.”

In Romans he is specifically condemning sodomy.

Finally, perhaps the strongest point for the notion that Paul should be understood in the historical context in which he lived is Paul’s returning of a runaway Christian slave to his Christian master in the Letter to Philemon. If Paul is to be understood literally, without any historical context, that seems to be fairly compelling support for the legitimization of slavery.

Please cite specifically the passage from Philemon where Paul advocates slavery, which seems to be the impression that you want your readers to get. And if you want us to believe that Paul was a heretic, why would you need to believe anything else Paul said. Or even anything else the Church teaches?

You do seem to have a rather high opinion of your own judgment versus the judgments of Paul and the Church. As a Catholic, where does that come from?

 

[josh987654321]

.

May I ask, Do you support same sex marriage Angelino? and if so, why?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

My point is that the Catholic understanding of marriage is not as static as is often suggested. Nor is the understanding of homosexuality.

I agree with you, Angelino. The Catholic Church’s understanding of marriage and homosexuality is, indeed, not static.

However, this ought not be confused with: "The Catholic Church once taught [A] regarding marriage and now teaches [not A].

 

[stewstew03]

My point is that the Catholic understanding of marriage is not as static as is often suggested. Nor is the understanding of homosexuality.
…

When did the Catholic Church teach that homosexuality was acceptable behavior?

First, this is, without a doubt, the strongest Biblical verse for a teaching against homosexual acts.

I don’t know about that, Romans 1 26-28 is pretty strong, too.

Here are my thoughts, informed by Catholic theologians from both sides of this issue and formed in the best conscience I know how:

Citations would be helpful.

1. Taken in context with the verses preceding it (as you quoted in your previous post), Paul is condemning paganism/idolatry and the promiscuous rituals that, in his time, went with it.

This is a silly interpretation that seems to be saying “Paul is only addressing people at that point in time, he doesn’t mean for readers outside of that time period to take him seriously.”

It’s pretty clear Paul is condemning the following (for all time):

1. Idolaters
2. Adulterers
3. Thieves
4. Greedy folks
5. Drunkards
6. Slanderers
7. Swindlers
8. Those who engage in Homosexual behavior.

1. Homosexual acts among pagans/Romans of that era was had 2 defining characteristics: pederasty and promiscuity. He condemns those, not the modern understanding of homosexuality.

What is the “modern understanding of homosexuality” and how is it different than the “ancient understanding of homosexuality”?

1. Finally, perhaps the strongest point for the notion that Paul should be understood in the historical context in which he lived is Paul’s returning of a runaway Christian slave to his Christian master in the Letter to Philemon. If Paul is to be understood literally, without any historical context, that seems to be fairly compelling support for the legitimization of slavery.

Your argument is basically this: “If the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, then the bible also teaches that slavery is okay.” This is a non-sequitur. There is plenty of biblical evidence that homosexuality is wrong, and plenty of evidence in the Gospel that suggests that slavery is definitely not okay. (By the way, I noticed that while you make a distinction between “ancient homosexuality” and “modern homosexuality” you fail to offer a similar analysis vis-a-vis slavery, but I digress).

Furthermore, I’m not aware of any claims that Scripture should be interpreted without any historical context. Paul’s letter to Philemon should be read “literally.” He is literally telling Philemon, “Hey, Philemon, I’m sitting here in prison with Onesimus. I’d like to keep his company, but I know that by law he should return home. By the way, while we were in prison I preached the Gospel to him and he converted to Christianity, so he’s not a slave anymore – he’s our brother in Christ, so treat him as such.”

Hope this helps.

 

[_Angelino]

Angelino
By what authority do you get to substitute your “conscience” for the teachings of the Church? Are you aware that there is an official view of same-sex relations that cannot be glossed over by simply saying you rely on “Catholic theologians from both sides of this issue.”

I never said there was a substitution. I was merely making shorthand for the following teaching in Dignitatis Humanae:

“It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity, so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. … (I)n forming their consciences, the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature”

Unless I’m missing something, the teaching on homosexuality has not been declared infallible. If it has, please refer me to the official declaration that says it is.

In Romans he is specifically condemning sodomy.

Agreed. What we disagree on is whether you include the rest of the Epistle, or read that verse in a void.

Please cite specifically the passage from Philemon where Paul advocates slavery, which seems to be the impression that you want your readers to get.

I never said advocated. Those are your words, not mine. I said he returns a slave to his owner.

And if you want us to believe that Paul was a heretic, why would you need to believe anything else Paul said.

Once again, I never said that.

You do seem to have a rather high opinion of your own judgment versus the judgments of Paul and the Church.

I’ll say this a third time, I never said any of this. I never elevated my judgement over the Church.

Please, do not put words in my mouth, as I would not do so to you.

 

[_Angelino]

I agree with you, Angelino. The Catholic Church’s understanding of marriage and homosexuality is, indeed, not static.

However, this ought not be confused with: "The Catholic Church once taught [A] regarding marriage and now teaches [not A].

I 100% agree with everything here. Thank you!

 

[PRmerger]

I 100% agree with everything here. Thank you!

What then of your contention that the CC’s teaching on homosexuality is not static?

Are you proposing that we need not provide apologia for this teaching?

 

[_Angelino]

What then of your contention that the CC’s teaching on homosexuality is not static?

My contention is meant exactly as I wrote it: The CC’s teaching on homosexuality is not static. Proclamations to the contrary, no matter how forceful, ignore this.

Are you proposing that we need not provide apologia for this teaching?

Not at all. I do, however, propose that people (Apologists and otherwise) stop relying on this “static” view of teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

My contention is meant exactly as I wrote it: The CC’s teaching on homosexuality is not static. Proclamations to the contrary, no matter how forceful, ignore this.

No teaching by the CC is static, so it’s an irrelevant assertion you are making.

Not at all. I do, however, propose that people (Apologists and otherwise) stop relying on this “static” view of teaching.

I don’t think apologists rely on any static teaching.

However, that ought not be confused with an apologist addressing a particular truth of this teaching. And the truth of that statement is eternal.