What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage

[ChainBreaker]

Homosexuality refers to a sexual practice. It is transitory, changeable, and circumstantial. For a specific criteria to be considered protected it must be immutable, permanent and unchangeable. Homosexuality is none of these. As you said, people “take on” the gay identity. That’s like my taking on the “Catholic” identity. I was not born Catholic, I chose to be Catholic. I could also choose not to be Catholic. The object of your sexual desire is not inherent.

For some people SSA is their gay identity; regardless of what i think of it. Black people ain’t black, they are various shades of brown, but they took on the black identity.

The state does have the right to decide which parties are eligible to enter specific contracts.

This is true. And as the number of gay people in each state rises, the more that gay people demand the right to same sex marriage, the more chances of that state using its right to legalize same sex marriage.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So now even the Muslims have got one up on the Christians insofar as religious freedom is concerned.

Maybe we should make the gay people where a pink badge so we can identify them before they kiss in a public restaurant.

Who’s that i hear marching towards us? The National Socialist Party.

What a classic progressive double-talk argument.

"Oh, those poor GLBTQ people who practice homosexual actions, what, with courts all over the states overturning bans that in some cases nearly 3 out of every 4 voters voted for…and all those parades, special attention from Hollywood and Northeast elites right down to Millennial who make so-called gay “marriage the most important issue of their voting life…nay, in some cases their very existence it seems…those poor little victims, why if we don’t do something, they’ll be put into concentration camps, enslaved, tortured and maybe even executed!”.

VS

"HA! We won the culture war over those religious (oh, um, I mean Christians, not you Muslims, no, you’re like victims too, and well, if you disagree with gay “marriage”, that’s your CULTURE and, you’re special, and like, whatever----oh, okay, straight white male conservative Christians) BIGOTS!!! YEAH, baby!

“EQUALITY” is here (er, um, except for those Muslim no-go zones—)! We won! We’re awesome (Oh, and I’m straight, so could you like declare me as this really caring and tolerant person?)

I don’t CARE if your a Christian—you HAVE to provide a wedding cake, flowers or photos! Public accommodation…bla…bla…(Muslims and non-white religious, please ignore at your convenience). We WON, U LOST—HA! HA! Now you get a little taste of what it’s like, for we are bringers of JUSTICE (again, Muslims, non-whites, ignore, especially at next election) and EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

 

[LisaA]

For some people SSA is their gay identity; regardless of what i think of it. Black people ain’t black, they are various shades of brown, but they took on the black identity.

This is true. And as the number of gay people in each state rises, the more that gay people demand the right to same sex marriage, the more chances of that state using its right to legalize same sex marriage.

You apparently do not understand the term SSA (Same Sex Attraction). This forum has an excellent discussion and explanation. I suggest you take a look as you are incorrect. Gay “identity” is self described and self reported. I do not know if you are gay, straight or not interested in sex by looking at you. However black (the term more often used is African American but that too is technically incorrect) as a description of race is something that is quite apparent from the person’s appearance. I work with a black woman. She wakes up black every day and goes to sleep black as well. She was born black. She didn’t take on the black “identity.” Identity refers to a transient state of being or association. When I was younger I was a 4Her…I was a member of a 4H club. I am no longer as I am way too old. OTOH I was born female and will die female. It is not an identity it’s an immutable characteristic I cannot change.

Why do you think the number of gay people is increasing? It’s been relatively static at about 3% of the male population for a long time. There is no evidence that being gay is genetic and further gay couples cannot have children so it’s moot.

I will say the gay activist crowd has certain media and celebrities in their corner and as a result have made great progess in their objectives. While I don’t think anyone objects to someone having the basic human rights to move about freely, obtain employment, housing and have access to public facilities etc the gay activist cohort has lost a lot of previous support by their silly and specious demands that they be provided with “wedding” cakes and flowers as well as other personal services. It really deameans the actual biogtry and unfortunate policies of the past by making petty demands. I expect the clash of civilizations will come soon once the gay activists start demanding Muslims accommodate them. After all when you sue, harrass or picket a Christian business, they might say a rosary for you but if you offend a Muslim there could be serious consequences as an unfortunate number of recent casualties have indicated.

 

[Tigg]

Are there only 10?

 

[LisaA]

Are there only 10?

I think it’s a series “What 10 Priests Say About ____” I haven’t been aware of this magazine in the past but it looks like some interesting reading. Courageous Priest is another site with various issues tackled by very holy and orthodox priests. Well worth reading too.

 

[Tigg]

Thanks, Lisa…I’m quite familiar with Courageous Priest. Good stuff there.

 

[ChainBreaker]

However black (the term more often used is African American but that too is technically incorrect) as a description of race is something that is quite apparent from the person’s appearance. I work with a black woman. She wakes up black every day and goes to sleep black as well. She was born black. She didn’t take on the black “identity.” Identity refers to a transient state of being or association. When I was younger I was a 4Her…I was a member of a 4H club. I am no longer as I am way too old. OTOH I was born female and will die female. It is not an identity it’s an immutable characteristic I cannot change.

I have never met a black person in my life. I see people with very dark brown skin. The term black is a legal identity; it is political. It is not the actual color of anyones skin.

 

[ChainBreaker]

What a classic progressive double-talk argument.

"Oh, those poor GLBTQ people who practice homosexual actions, what, with courts all over the states overturning bans that in some cases nearly 3 out of every 4 voters voted for…and all those parades, special attention from Hollywood and Northeast elites right down to Millennial who make so-called gay “marriage the most important issue of their voting life…nay, in some cases their very existence it seems…those poor little victims, why if we don’t do something, they’ll be put into concentration camps, enslaved, tortured and maybe even executed!”.

VS

"HA! We won the culture war over those religious (oh, um, I mean Christians, not you Muslims, no, you’re like victims too, and well, if you disagree with gay “marriage”, that’s your CULTURE and, you’re special, and like, whatever----oh, okay, straight white male conservative Christians) BIGOTS!!! YEAH, baby!

“EQUALITY” is here (er, um, except for those Muslim no-go zones—)! We won! We’re awesome (Oh, and I’m straight, so could you like declare me as this really caring and tolerant person?)

I don’t CARE if your a Christian—you HAVE to provide a wedding cake, flowers or photos! Public accommodation…bla…bla…(Muslims and non-white religious, please ignore at your convenience). We WON, U LOST—HA! HA! Now you get a little taste of what it’s like, for we are bringers of JUSTICE (again, Muslims, non-whites, ignore, especially at next election) and EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

Whose that i hear marching towards us…

 

[LisaA]

I have never met a black person in my life. I see people with very dark brown skin. The term black is a legal identity; it is political. It is not the actual color of anyones skin.

That statement is not only hopelessly off topic but makes absolutely no sense.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That statement is not only hopelessly off topic but makes absolutely no sense.

I think its very clear what i am saying. If you cannot grasp something so clear and self evident, then i think i will have to bow out of this discussion. Because being a black man my self i might start getting really angry.

 

[LisaA]

I think its very clear what i am saying. If you cannot grasp something so clear and self evident, then i think i will have to bow out of this discussion. Because being a black man my self i might start getting really angry.

Again what does your skin tone have to do with “What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage.” Connecting the dots is difficult.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Again what does your skin tone have to do with “What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage.” Connecting the dots is difficult.

Perhaps nothing; but what it has revealed is your very tricky and evasive attitude. So i will not be continuing this conversation. Thanks

 

[SuperLuigi]

Whose that i hear marching towards us…

Am I to understand this means you don’t have anything of substance to say and concede?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Again what does your skin tone have to do with “What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage.” Connecting the dots is difficult.

You know the conversation is over when they start commenting about your reading comprehension in a sentence of two.

 

[LisaA]

You know the conversation is over when they start commenting about your reading comprehension in a sentence of two.

I resort back to one of my favorite quotes from Socrates: When the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Admittedly sometimes we think we are clearly making a point but the responses make it clear we did not. So an explanation is in order. However often this is just a way of shutting down the discussion.

I’m impressed with the thoughtful comments by these priests and have included them in my collection of quotes.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Am I to understand this means you don’t have anything of substance to say and concede?

My argument is clear and irrefutable.

Lets put this in authoritative terms. Unless the Pope says that it is not okay to render service to gay people, i see not rational or moral justification to refuse business. And you should be sued.

 

[casslean]

My argument is clear and irrefutable.

Lets put this in authoritative terms. Unless the Pope says that it is not okay to render service to gay people, i see not rational or moral justification to refuse business. And you should be sued.

It depends on the service being provided. If the service is so closely linked to one’s religious beliefs, then yes, they should be free to refuse services when doing so would violate those beliefs. As a lawyer, for instance, I am under no obligation to take on a client who is asking me to argue that they should be able to obtain a physician-assisted death when doing so would violate one of my moral precepts (I would be directly facilitating the death of another person).

Similarly, a wedding planner should not be obligated to provide services where doing so violates their moral precepts. In that case, they would be directly facilitating a marriage they don’t believe is valid and legitimate, which I can concede is problematic.

The challenge is when the service is more remote. If I’m a baker and my job is to provide a wedding cake, the cake won’t make or break the wedding. It isn’t a critical part of the wedding. In that case, providing a cake isn’t facilitating a marriage. It’s baking a cake.

Personally, I think tolerance is a two-way street, and same-sex couples could just acknowledge not everyone is comfortable with same-sex marriage and find another baker. Sometimes we don’t have to all proclaim and exert our rights; we can just agree to disagree and still find a way to get along.

 

[sirach2v4]

Once again, an article about homosexual marriage, but there is nothing here that the spiritual elite offer in compassion to people who through no fault of their own find themselves attracted to persons of the same sex.

…except for the often-repeated condemnation of homosexual activity. Of course, this is a big and important topic, it’s the most important topic with respect to the salvation of the souls of those with same-sex attraction.

In the NT letter of James, he says it’s wrong to look at people in need and just walk away and to say have a nice day. Elsewhere Paul says that we are to help support other people’s burdens.

Where are these 10 priests on this subject?

In the Church, we recognize many actions as sinful. But, we don’t walk around or spend a lot of time in the Catholic Answers forums discussing adultery or fornication nearly as much as people spend time condemning homosexual activity. There is a bias here, here in the church and here in these forums.

Spiritual needs of people with SSA are foremost, but such SSA Catholics have social and emotional needs as much as anybody else, but they have no outlet (or is it “inlet”) to support them. What is there anyplace, inside the Church or outside, to give them the same social and emotional fulfillment in life that comes close to that of the natural order man/woman marriage?

IOW, what lifestyle does the Church approve of for them? Only one priest said he’d marry the two SSA people (man, woman) IF they could consummate the marriage. So, what about the rest? If I understand correctly, the Church does not want homosexuals in the priesthood. There is no shelter in the Church in holy orders, and probably in consecrated life as well. The status as “outcast” is unavoidable.

Is this the Divine ordinance?

 

[LisaA]

Once again, an article about homosexual marriage, but there is nothing here that the spiritual elite offer in compassion to people who through no fault of their own find themselves attracted to persons of the same sex.

…except for the often-repeated condemnation of homosexual activity. Of course, this is a big and important topic, it’s the most important topic with respect to the salvation of the souls of those with same-sex attraction.

In the NT letter of James, he says it’s wrong to look at people in need and just walk away and to say have a nice day. Elsewhere Paul says that we are to help support other people’s burdens.

Where are these 10 priests on this subject?

In the Church, we recognize many actions as sinful. But, we don’t walk around or spend a lot of time in the Catholic Answers forums discussing adultery or fornication nearly as much as people spend time condemning homosexual activity. There is a bias here, here in the church and here in these forums.

Spiritual needs of people with SSA are foremost, but such SSA Catholics have social and emotional needs as much as anybody else, but they have no outlet (or is it “inlet”) to support them. What is there anyplace, inside the Church or outside, to give them the same social and emotional fulfillment in life that comes close to that of the natural order man/woman marriage?

IOW, what lifestyle does the Church approve of for them? Only one priest said he’d marry the two SSA people (man, woman) IF they could consummate the marriage. So, what about the rest? If I understand correctly, the Church does not want homosexuals in the priesthood. There is no shelter in the Church in holy orders, and probably in consecrated life as well. The status as “outcast” is unavoidable.

Is this the Divine ordinance?

A bit of an over reach there Sirach. The OP is what 10 priest say about gay marriage, not what 10 priests say about dealing with those who experience SSA nor what 10 priests say about how to live if you have SSA. If you read the Catechism, it is filled with compassion and understanding for the PERSON. We treat persons with compassion and grace but we treat ISSUES with truth. In truth there is no such thing as gay “marriage” if you are to give marriage any unique meaning—man and woman in a lifelong bond in which children are welcomed comes to mind here. So if the focus of these priests is gay “marriage” it is not going to address all of the issues people who experience SSA and those who encounter THEM. That’s what it seems distresses you…that the issues not involved in the OP were not addressed. Should they be or should you start another thread dealing with those important questions?

As to the lifestyle for those who experience SSA, it is no different than those who are not married, remain chaste, embrace your vocation which at the time is singlehood and live your faith. It seems that those who experience SSA think MORE is being asked of them than others who are not married. Do you think heterosexuals are not tempted to engage in sexual sins? Do you think everyone who wishes to be married can find a partner? Yes those who experience SSA have special challenges and that is clearly noted in the Catechism. But don’t feel like only those with SSA have these challenges and crosses to bear.

If you are interested in how those who experience SSA are able to deal with their cross and live their faith the organization Courage has a number of resources. I’ve seen numerous programs, videos and other material reported on EWTN and The Catholic Channel. In fact I have a friend who is Lesbian, lived the gay lifestyle for many years but returned to her faith and is living chastely. It is possible.

As to your comment the Church doesn’t want “homosexual” priests, in using this term you infer they are ACTIVELY homosexual. The Church accepts candidates who experience SSA as long as they are sincerely focused on remaning celibate just like heterosexual priests who also feel temptations in life.

 

[LisaA]

It depends on the service being provided. If the service is so closely linked to one’s religious beliefs, then yes, they should be free to refuse services when doing so would violate those beliefs. As a lawyer, for instance, I am under no obligation to take on a client who is asking me to argue that they should be able to obtain a physician-assisted death when doing so would violate one of my moral precepts (I would be directly facilitating the death of another person).

Similarly, a wedding planner should not be obligated to provide services where doing so violates their moral precepts. In that case, they would be directly facilitating a marriage they don’t believe is valid and legitimate, which I can concede is problematic.

The challenge is when the service is more remote. If I’m a baker and my job is to provide a wedding cake, the cake won’t make or break the wedding. It isn’t a critical part of the wedding. In that case, providing a cake isn’t facilitating a marriage. It’s baking a cake.

Personally, I think tolerance is a two-way street, and same-sex couples could just acknowledge not everyone is comfortable with same-sex marriage and find another baker. Sometimes we don’t have to all proclaim and exert our rights; we can just agree to disagree and still find a way to get along.

I think your example is an interesting one because the Bakery Suits have been a huge and newsworthy group of cases. I THINK the distinguishing factor is that it’s not merely baking a cake and in every case gays or Lesbians were able and did come into the bakery and brought off the shelf products. It gets trickier as each wedding cake is tailored to the couple’s desires and use the artistic talents of the baker…further the placing of two grooms or two brides on the top makes the baker acknowledge it’s more than “just a cake.” If a baker refused to allow gay couples in the door or buy a cake in the window it might be one thing but to ask a baker to use artistic talent…also most bakers bring the cake to the venue, set up, decorate around it etc…is more than “just baking a cake.” I agree some compromise is possible…but clearly those pushing a “gay rights” narrative are not interested in dialogue.