Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

[karoleck]

Because the Catholic Church won’t leave them alone in its turn. When same sex Civil Partnership was proposed in the UK, the Catholic Bishops issued a statement against it:

We believe the government’s proposals to create civil partnerships for same sex couples would not promote the common good, and we therefore strongly oppose them.

Source: Clarification on Civil Partnerships

This was Civil Partnership, not marriage. The legislation specifically forbade any Civil Partnerships taking place in any religious building, even for liberal denominations like Quakers or some Liberal synagogues that might have wished to. (An infringement on religious liberty that the Catholic Bishops appear to have ignored.)

This was purely civil legislation, with no effect on the ability of the Catholic Church to refuse to perform such ceremonies.

Despite this, the Catholic Bishops weighed in against the proposals. If you want people to leave you alone, then in return you have to leave them alone. If you come out in public against purely civil legislation then you should expect to receive criticism.

$0.02

rossum

May I remind you ,that Bishops are also citizens and as prominent representatives of other citizens ,they have every right and in fact a duty to proclaim an opinion where a bad law is forced upon a society.
The Bishops have not done"An infringement on religious liberty that the Catholic Bishops appear to have ignored." as you unjustly have claimed.Catholics too are citizens in a democratic society unless persons like yourself have your way!

 

[livingwordunity]

Because the Catholic Church won’t leave them alone in its turn. When same sex Civil Partnership was proposed in the UK, the Catholic Bishops issued a statement against it

As everyone can now plainly see from what’s been going on in the news, “Civil Partnership” was only a stepping stone to the real agenda of forcing everyone to change the definition of marriage. Since everyone has voiced their opinion in this debate that was started by the “gay” activists, the Catholic Church has every right to voice her opinion on the matter. And the Catholic Church has a sacred obligation to promote the truth with regard to faith and morals even when the truth is out of fashion as it is today. Since her wisdom is from God the Catholic Church knows what’s best for all of us. The bishops are speaking the truth, not putting a gun up to anyone’s head to force them to act on it. But it’s government that is threatening force on all faithful Catholics to violate our conscience.

 

[PeterJohn]

‘Homosexuality is wrong’ is not The Truth. It is a religious belief. It is your religion that believes it. There are other religions that don’t hold to that. There are people who have the same religion as you who do not hold to that. If it is your ultimate intent to have everyone believe exactly what you believe, you are advocating a theocracy. If that is not the case, then you must accept that others will hold different views to you and you surely must support that freedom.

Well there’s me thinking you guys were declaring it an abomination and punishable by death since the Church started. That’s pretty much in your face from Day 1 isn’t it? At least you’ve toned it down a little since.

You misunderstand me. I don’t want your opinions (and I’m glad you didn’t say The Truth) to be stifled. I think you have every right to declare homosexuality wrong. I’ve got no problem if you don’t want your church to marry gay people. I would appreciate it if you did ‘cast your vote’ against it because that indicates to me that you consider that being in the majority counts.

I agree with you heart and soul that the majority should have a say in what happens in one’s own country. I’d love you to make up a few bumper stickers along the lines of ‘We’re the majority and that’s what counts!’

But being in the majority doesn’t mean that the statement ‘Gay Marriage is Wrong’ is a fact. It’s just the majority opinion. When, in a short time, the majority thinks that ‘Gay Marriage is OK’, it won’t be a fact either. It will be the majority opinion. You can then peel that sticker off and give it to the gay couple down the road. They’d appreciate the irony.

Allow me to clarify
homosexuals are not wrong in that they love the same sex and are attracted to them. It is homosexual consummation of that feeling that is wrong. Please have an open mind when considering this, that sexual reproductive organs are for reproduction. A mans parts are not ment for another mans bum, as a chicken is not ment to live in a pond. The church does not try to brainwash people or influence them by years of portraying gay and lesbians on TV to young audiences in positive ways with the support of companies worth billions that are staples in American life and would seem to be part of the norm.

The church does teach common sense, love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope and kindness. Now, which one of those are in your face? Which one of those would hurt the human race? I’m reminded of a quote from a astronaut who was looking at the earth from either the moon or in orbit of the moon and how he had a paradigm shift.
http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/spaceimages_2210_735035

How does a manpart and a mans bum fit in with common sense, love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope, and kindness in this picture?

 

[rossum]

May I remind you ,that Bishops are also citizens and as prominent representatives of other citizens ,they have every right and in fact a duty to proclaim an opinion where a bad law is forced upon a society.
The Bishops have not done"An infringement on religious liberty that the Catholic Bishops appear to have ignored." as you unjustly have claimed.Catholics too are citizens in a democratic society unless persons like yourself have your way!

If the Bishops make public statements against Civil Partnership, then it is rather strange to complain that proponents of Civil Partnership make public statements against the Bishops.

Democracy certainly allows the Bishops to make such statements, and it equally allows their opponents to make statements as well. If you don’t want the other side to attack you, then it makes sense not to attack them.

rossum

 

[PeterJohn]

I think amidst all the day to day trivial things we face in life, we seem to loose sight of the big picture. We are all one. One human race. And our existence is fragile. The balance of life is a delicate balance.
God to a catholic(at least to me) IS existence, and IS life. We sing praise to this every Sunday at mass and celebrate life and love and forgiveness and charity and kindness.
Those who argue against a organization that teaches to its 1 billion members these attributes seems to me to be silly. Many people for lack of better argument bring up our past sins as if they are relevant today. Standing where that picture had been taken, viewing the same sight, how can one not see the beauty of what the catholic church teaches. Life is a gift as well as a balance. We each have a integral part of life. Freedom is not doing what you want, it is the right to life and growth and future. Where is the future in the way America see’s marriage today? My church teaches marriage to be a responsibility to our future. A responsibility to protect the next generations “should be” garentee that they will be handed a planet that is in peaceful order and not a group of society’s that are broken with fundamental problems starting from birth(or the denial of birth) and childhood. Look at what America promotes with its “freedoms”.
Divorce(broken families)(unreponsible parenting) these lead to children being raised in ways that are not ideal. don’t we have enough problems with people dieing from war and disease without having to promote broken families by means of the American ease of leaving ones family? Marriage in the US is in a bad state right now. Adding homosexual marriages won’t help the problem. It will just further add to the loosening definition of what a marriage should be. A commitment. With its attributes being love, chastity, kindness, forgiveness, hope, charity, compassion ect ect. Gay and lesbian marriages will not teach straight marriages to “get with it”. From a statistical standpoint they are less chaste, less stable, and they don’t promote marriage as being integral with family or responsible parenting because they cannot produce children. I don’t ask what is marriage. I ask What SHOULD marriage be? Where are we to find these principals of responsibility that are integral to stable futures of the human race? American “rights or freedoms” are becoming a simple way to dodge responsibility of ones own actions. Look at phsycology, where do a lot of problems we face in our communities and in persons lives come from? Childhood. So many Americans face problems in mental development, learning, trust, relationships, honesty and integrity. These problems spawn from how a child is raised. So I ask, what context are we to view children being raised in? FAMILY! And where do families begin? With sex wether conception is intended or not. That is where babies come from. Now, I ask isnt it better for two humans consenting to have sex to be committed to deal with raising a child/family? Isn’t that the responsible thing to do? A marriage is the ordinary form of that commitment. “irreconcilable differences” was the worst thing to happen to that commitment.(divorce for any reason)
Who suffers? Children, aka the future of the human race, the “better tomorrow” we all hope for with peace on earth, good will, kindness, charity, forgiveness, generosity, and compassion.
My point is, any more loosening of what the common form of commitment to the responsibility of rearing children for a better tomorrow,(marriage) is, the worse off tomorrow is. Ask yourself, do good parents teach responsibility by letting their children do as they please and by allowing them to skip out of commitments? Marriage is the problem with America, or the lack thereof commitment. Allowing gay and lesbian marriage is not promoting healthy marriages. In fact it’s promoting marriage as something’s it’s not.

If two women want to be in love then that’s great!!! If they want to be recognized as a couple THEY ARE! If they further want to be recognized as a couple then GET A TSHIRT THAT SAYS IT!!
If they want financial benefits then seek them but not by means of adding to the loosening of what marriage(the ordinary commitment of those who are committed to be responsible for a child in the event of conception by means of sexual intercourse) is. We desperately need married people to stay committed if they concieve children, for the sake of the people they concieve. These people are the very future of The human race!

Marriage is the problem. Not gays and lesbians wanting to love each other. But we can’t sacrifice the future or our world in order to let them further decline what marriage is by promoting marriage as a simple piece of paper bonding people together for financial purposes. Let them create legislature to allow wills to be automaticly left to their lovers, and insurance to be extended to their lovers, and tax matters to be inclusive of their lovers. Redefining marriage for the sake of love is not worth the detriments it will add to.

 

[livingwordunity]

If the Bishops make public statements against Civil Partnership, then it is rather strange to complain that proponents of Civil Partnership make public statements against the Bishops.

Democracy certainly allows the Bishops to make such statements, and it equally allows their opponents to make statements as well. If you don’t want the other side to attack you, then it makes sense not to attack them.

rossum

If this were only about people voicing opinions there would not be a need for the Fortnight for Freedom. But this is about more than people voicing opinions. It’s about the government aggressively forcing it’s opinion with unprecedented laws which violate religious conscience and liberty punishing those of us who have a moral conscience and believe that there’s something more to this life than gratifying the pleasures of the flesh.

 

[Bradski]

Up to the point where homosexualists want to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Whatever the definition of marriage, it won’t affect you in the slightest.

Every time the people have been allowed to vote, they have voted against homosexual “marriage.” Where homosexual “marriage” has been legalised, it has been because homosexualist activists have resorted to coercion through legislatures and courts.

Well, let’s agree to something, shall we? Those on both sides of the debate can put forward their views and we will let the people decide. Let’s keep it to a simple majority vote. Would you be happy with that?

The history of the Catholic Church gives it the pedigree and the authority to claim such Truths, unlike other religions. This is a “mere” matter of history, impersonal and objective.

The longer you hold a belief the more truthful it becomes?

We support the freedom of free will, because that is what God supports. When our country tells us what we must and must not endorse and provide for others, despite what our religion and rules tell us, our freedoms as Catholics and as citizens are taken away. If you support that in any way, shape or form, then you are a complete and utter hypocrite.

I don’t support it in any way. You should be free to act in whatever way your conscience and your faith dictates. I would support your right, for example, not to have to provide services such as abortion or contraception. I would support your right to be able to refuse to marry a gay couple in church. I support your right to argue against changing the definition of the term marriage.

I think we should be open and honest in our debate and I believe that ultimately, the people themselves will decide what is acceptable.

And now you’re toning it up. If you think we’ve “toned it down”, why the shouting now? Just like making noise?

I thought this was a reasonable debate. If we can steer away from some of the more extreme xases of rhetoric I think that will be a good thing.

Whatever happens, the Church will be there to teach by example and compassion.

Long may it continue to do so.

As you can see from these two authoritative teachings,you have misrepresented what is the catholic approach to a person with a same sex attraction.

You will notice that I made bold the words ACTS because here is the rub,an inclination to do something is not a sin but the doing or acting out of this disorder is.

I’ve been around long enough to know that Karoleck. But I guess it’s worth reminding everyone of the fact now and then. When I talk about homosexuality as in ‘the church believes that homosexuality is wrong’, I’m talking about homosexual acts. I appreciate ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ approach.

So society should always uphold what is written in everyones heart,even be it by a non believer, as you claim for yourself.By taking the position that you are doing ,I believe that you are not being true to your very nature ,as a human being( male/female).

I wouldn’t ‘uphold what is written in everyones heart’ unless I could see that there would be no detrimental effect on society in general. I see no problem with gay marriage (and I mean zero problem) so I have no problem in supporting a move to have it accepted.

The fact that you don’t see two male birds making a nest in and that therefore two women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other for a lifetime is ‘unatural’ is…well, nonsensical. There’s a fair proportion of people who are gay. There’s no getting around that, so to call it unnatural is simply wrong. It occurs in nature – obviously, therefore it is natural.

As catholics who are also citizens and live within a secular society,we have every right and in fact an obligation to uphold natural moral laws and also help to create a just society using the priciples of “the common good”.

I don’t really have a problem with that insomuch as you feel personally that you have to uphold what you believe to be natural moral laws. But I’d rather you didn’t insist that everyone else has to obey your rules as well. I’m frustrated by the fact that you consider you know what’s best for the ‘common good’. I think that I know what’s best, but I wouldn’t want to impose my will on anyone else. I’d rather leave it to the people to decide.

How does a manpart and a mans bum fit in with common sense, love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope, and kindness in this picture?

How does a woman explain to her lifelong gay partner that she’d like to be intimate with her, but it doesn’t fit in with love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope and kindness? They can experience all those emotions, but once they get into bed they become null and void? I don’t get that.

Marriage is the problem with America, or the lack thereof commitment. Allowing gay and lesbian marriage is not promoting healthy marriages. In fact it’s promoting marriage as something’s it’s not.

Do you think that less heterosexual people will get married if gay people are allowed to do so? Do you think that allowing gay marriage will result in more divorces? That hasn’t been ther case elsewhere. Do you have good reasons for believing it may happen in America?

 

[PeterJohn]

#1
How does a woman explain to her lifelong gay partner that she’d like to be intimate with her, but it doesn’t fit in with love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope and kindness? They can experience all those emotions, but once they get into bed they become null and void? I don’t get that.

#2
Do you think that less heterosexual people will get married if gay people are allowed to do so? Do you think that allowing gay marriage will result in more divorces? That hasn’t been ther case elsewhere. Do you have good reasons for believing it may happen in America?

#1. I am sorry you don’t get it. Perhaps you have a preconcieved notion. I thought I spelled it out kind of clearly. It saddens me that I can see your point but you can’t see mine. Also, look at statistics in comparable western countries that have allowed gay marriages, look at the estimated life span of homosexual unions vs hetero. They seem to last a much shorter span of time on average. And you say intimate but I think you mean sexually active. So your question, in the real world, should be “How does a woman explain to her gay partner that she’d like to be sexually active with her, but it doesn’t fit in with love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope and kindness?” and I ask, does sex require love and all these attributes? The answer is no. Drunk people have meaningless sex all the time. And intimacy requires no sexual attraction at all. My best friend and I have intimate conversations all the time. Here’s the definition…
INTIMACY:
n pl -cies
close or warm friendship or understanding; personal relationship

The Catholic church teaches intimacy. We see it as integral to Christian life.
I recommend intimacy to all. It’s a great thing.

#2. I didn’t say less hetero’s will get married. So, no.
Allowing gay marriage will, as I said, add to the current problem of people seeing marriage solely about love and not about being the ordinary form of commitment to responsibility of raising children. And here’s what I mean, if people want to be in love and commit to one another, then they simply can tell each other that they are committed and that’s what we call a relationship. The problem with our children, as I stated before, is how they are being so commonly raised in broken and single parent families. Look at statistics. Google will reveal many such studies. Broken family’s are caused by lack of commitment and responsibility. What would you call such a commitment to raising a child? A marriage has always and everywhere been for the procurement of offspring, whether it was arranged or consented. Google this is you don’t believe me. Marriage is a commitment. A commitment to what? Love each other? Sure, but can you make yourself stay in love? No. So how can anyone commit to something they cannot rightly make themselves do? Love is an attribute of marriage, an accompanying imgredient in today’s common view of marriage. But what it’s purpose is, and always has been, is a commitment to stay together and be monagomous for the purpose of the BIG responsibility of raising, nurturing, teaching and molding a human being into someone who will someday make the decisions that will add to the goodness of the human race. The advent of the pill and latex condom, and their wide availability, led to a loosening of the responsibility and definition of what sexual intercourse is. If you lived in the 1920’s and contemplated sexual intercourse, having a child logicaly was the outcome of such actions. In the 50’s,60’s and 70’s people gained access like never before to contraceptives and so started the “sexual revolution”(see google for more info). The sexual revolution started a new idea that sex was not soley about reproduction. America started having sexual intercourse for fun because the end result of sexual intercourse, did not have to end in a child and thus the naturaly assigned responsibility of parenting. Contraception had ended a form of responsibility that was age old. Thus began the new chapter of american life, and the advent of the rampant “unintended pregnancy” instead of marriages lasting longer because there was no children to add the the stress of daily life that is already difficult in marriages, studies show that they decreased in duration.(new studies show the more children a married couple has, and the faster they have children, the less likely the marriage was to end in divorce. See 1flesh. Org) to add to the growing number of divorces, caused by so many people that wanted a divorce, a new reason for divorce was added “irreconcilable differences”. And to deal with the unintended pregnancies, many groups, with the help of the federal government, and support by schools ushered in programs to make contraception even more widely available. In short, The advent of contraception removed the sense of responsibility of sexually active people, and at the same time created a sense that marriage could be child free too and thus void of the responsibility of parenting. So now! Kids are raised to see sex as something that isn’t intrinsic with pregnancies which is wrong, untrue and unnatural.

Marriage, the ordinary place where sexual reproduction occurs, fell victim to redefinition during the “sexual revolution” because marriage “could easily” be consummated without the reality of sexual intercourse ending in a pregnancy. I won’t get into abortion here although it is definitely a card that was played in assisting in childless marriages and sexual intercourse. So now, if those who married didn’t have to face the reality of children, marriage was free to be conducted by those who didn’t want children, and it was viewed without children being an integral part of it. With children out of the way, what was marriage about? The answer the 60’s and 70’s gave us was love alone. Marriage had been redefined, in that it only needed love and not commitment, thus weakening the marriage bond. After all, it would be so much easier to leave your lover if there were no ties(like a child) that you would have to feel responsible to. Today anyone with an eye can see the fruit of this way of thinking. Ask anyone older then 70 years that was/is married, what marriage is about
So in today’s America, we can see that redefinition of what marriage entails, because of the sexual revolution and the advent of wide spread availability of contraception, has led to a view that marriage “should be about love”(alone). The problems we see were caused by irresponsibility and redefinition of marriage to be soley about love and loosely connected to commitment. If two people love each other they should get married right? Because that’s what marriage is about right? Wrong. Marriage is, and always was about commitment to the responsibility of raising children. A marriage is about commitment to a family, and love is a possible and very often integral attribute of it.

With this in mind, I can’t say that FURTHER redefining marriage as something that’s not about procreation is a good thing. I feel sorry if gay and lesbian couples have fooled themselves into thinking that marriage is the only way to commit to one another, or that marriage is the only way that they can truly love each other, or that marriage is solely about love and should be able to be up for grabs by any two humans who want to love each other. I love my brothers and sister deeply, I would die for them but I don’t need marriage to make that feel right inside. I have suspicions that are most likely wrong, that gays and lesbians want to be able to be married so that they feel like they are normal. Gays and lesbians have been around forever, I believe God makes them that way, I accept and love them just the same as anyone else but it is evident by natural design that they weren’t intended to have sexual intercourse thusly weren’t intended to procreate and thusly werent intended to enter into a commitment to raise a child and thusly plainly aren’t those who should enter into a marriage.

 

[Lochias]

I think we should be open and honest in our debate and I believe that ultimately, the people themselves will decide what is acceptable.

That is the nature of free will, indeed. From our own worldview, however, many people do not realize the consequences of the choices that they are making, and so we continue to gently and firmly speak against what we deem to be harmful. Be that as it may, we cannot force anyone to do anything, nor would we want to (despite the fact that such choices are being forced upon us).

I thought this was a reasonable debate. If we can steer away from some of the more extreme xases of rhetoric I think that will be a good thing.

Just making a point. Whatever mistakes that some members of the Church have made in the past have no bearing on the example and means that we employ today.

Long may it continue to do so.

Thank you, the sentiment is appreciated. It is all too easy to revert to a combative tone in these times, and your own example of patience and respect is one that many people, atheist and religious alike, could benefit from.

The fact that you don’t see two male birds making a nest in and that therefore two women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other for a lifetime is ‘unatural’ is…well, nonsensical. There’s a fair proportion of people who are gay. There’s no getting around that, so to call it unnatural is simply wrong. It occurs in nature – obviously, therefore it is natural.

This argument doesn’t hold up under any kind of context…chimpanzees kill and devour their own young, so is that clearly natural for humans to do as well? Or, is it only natural for chimpanzees?

I don’t really have a problem with that insomuch as you feel personally that you have to uphold what you believe to be natural moral laws. But I’d rather you didn’t insist that everyone else has to obey your rules as well. I’m frustrated by the fact that you consider you know what’s best for the ‘common good’. I think that I know what’s best, but I wouldn’t want to impose my will on anyone else. I’d rather leave it to the people to decide.

Leaving it to the people to decide is no different from you or I deciding. Catholics must live as an example to others, and sometimes that involves calling people out on what we understand to be harmful and destructive behavior. We can’t force anyone to do anything, but we also cannot live our faith only behind closed doors.

How does a woman explain to her lifelong gay partner that she’d like to be intimate with her, but it doesn’t fit in with love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope and kindness? They can experience all those emotions, but once they get into bed they become null and void? I don’t get that.

To understand the Catholic position on this, you’d need to study and understand the Catholic theology behind it. That way, even if you don’t agree, you could say you “get” it.

 

[Bradski]

#1. I am sorry you don’t get it. Perhaps you have a preconcieved notion. I thought I spelled it out kind of clearly. It saddens me that I can see your point but you can’t see mine. And you say intimate but I think you mean sexually active. So your question, in the real world, should be “How does a woman explain to her gay partner that she’d like to be sexually active with her, but it doesn’t fit in with love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope and kindness?” and I ask, does sex require love and all these attributes?

No. You can have sex with an inanimate object if that floats your boat. But take it from me, sex is a lot better if you are in love and have a commitment to the other person. If you can share hope and you are kind to each other and you can forgive each other’s faults and you make that commitment to each other, then sex will follow. I couldn’t envisage a lifetime together with my wife without sex. It brings us closer together.

It’s the same with a gay couple. Who don’t have sex to produce offspring, but it’s still exactly the same because my wife and I don’t have sex for that reason either. But you are saying that gay sex and all those wonderful attributes that you mentioned do not go together. I can’t see how they can be separated.

I recommend intimacy to all. It’s a great thing.

I agree. And you’re right that it doesn’t have to include sex.

#2. I didn’t say less hetero’s will get married. So, no.
Allowing gay marriage will, as I said, add to the current problem of people seeing marriage solely about love and not about being the ordinary form of commitment to responsibility of raising children.

I appreciate you wrote a lot more, but this seems to encapsulate the differences in our approach. I do see marriage as simply about love and commitment. Having children can be done inside or outside marriage and I don’t have a problem with that (although I would assume that you would). Obviously people do have children after they are married, but I don’t accept that it should be the reason why they marry.

When my wife and I got married we didn’t think: Gee, I want babies with you so we should get shacked up. We got married because we felt we wanted to live the rest of lives together. It was only later (that afternoon to be precise) that we suddenly realised – hey, we’ll probably be having kids! How about we throw a few names around for the hell of it.

And here’s what I mean, if people want to be in love and commit to one another, then they simply can tell each other that they are committed and that’s what we call a relationship.

Personally I agree. I asked my wife if she’d marry me and the instant she said yes, as far as I was concerned there was a pact made between us. To death do us part. I didn’t really need the marriage. It was superfluous to me. But Caz insisted she wanted a ceremony to ‘legalise it’. No problem. If that what someone wants to be legally classed as married, then I’ve got no problem with it.

Same with gay people. I don’t see the need personally, but if that’s what someone wants, I see no problem with it at all.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s the same with a gay couple. Who don’t have sex to produce offspring, but it’s still exactly the same because my wife and I don’t have sex for that reason either.

Two homosexuals getting physical gratification with each other is not the same as if a man and his wife have sex without the intention of having children because only the union of the male and female body in marriage is a natural union willed by God. God made us male and female for a reason. God is love, so true love can never come from anything that offends him and severs our relationship with him.

 

[Bradski]

That is the nature of free will, indeed. From our own worldview, however, many people do not realize the consequences of the choices that they are making, and so we continue to gently and firmly speak against what we deem to be harmful. Be that as it may, we cannot force anyone to do anything, nor would we want to (despite the fact that such choices are being forced upon us).

To an extent you are correct. We wouldn’t want a child to do something that we knew was harmful or dangerous. You don’t let your kid play in the storm drain because you know the risks. We know that some things are wrong. But that doesn’t tie in with gay marriage.

You believe it’s wrong for a variety of reasons, but others disagree. There are honestly held positions on both sides (leaving out the homophobic and anti-religious brigades). It’s up to us to put forward our case as well as we can and let those who have not decided what they believe is acceptable or not.

Note that I am not saying what is correct or not, but what is acceptable or not (although I do believe that allowing gay marriage is the correct thing to do).

This argument doesn’t hold up under any kind of context…chimpanzees kill and devour their own young, so is that clearly natural for humans to do as well? Or, is it only natural for chimpanzees?

I think you’ve reversed the argument to suggest that what I was saying is that if something appears in nature then it is acceptable to humans. That is obviously not the case. You wouldn’t get many men willing to marry if the female was hell bent on eating you immediately after sex.

What I am saying is that a significant minority of people are gay and that therefore, by definition, you can’t call it unnatural. Yes, they won’t be able to produce offspring, but neither can a 90 year old couple but it’s not unnatural for two people of that age to fall in love and want to get married. I can’t stop anyone using that argument, but it doesn’t register with me at all. It’s entirely inconsequential in the factors I use in coming to me personal decision on this.

Leaving it to the people to decide is no different from you or I deciding. Catholics must live as an example to others, and sometimes that involves calling people out on what we understand to be harmful and destructive behavior. We can’t force anyone to do anything, but we also cannot live our faith only behind closed doors.

I wouldn’t want you to. God forbid that I’d want everyone to listen to the Gospel According to Bradski. There are a lot of viewpoints out there and a lot of ways to live one’s life. My belief is that everyone should be as informed as possible and then encouraged to make their own mind up on matters that concern them. So your viewpoint is equally valid in that context as mine.

To understand the Catholic position on this, you’d need to study and understand the Catholic theology behind it. That way, even if you don’t agree, you could say you “get” it.

I have to a certain extent. Enough, I hope, to be able to say, yes – I do get it. I just don’t agree with it.

 

[Bradski]

…only the union of the male and female body in marriage is a natural union willed by God. God made us male and female for a reason. God is love, so true love can never come from anything that offends him and severs our relationship with him.

You’re obviously entitled to that view, but it is obviously a religious viewpoint. If you believe marriage should be a religious institution, then a Christian marriage could not include gay people.

However, I believe that marriage is a secular institiution and cannot therefore rely on religious viewpoints to dictate its form.

If you think that it should, then the question will arise: which religion’s viewpoint should take precedence.

 

[Bradski]

No. You can have sex with an inanimate object if that floats your boat. But take it from me, sex is a lot better if you are in love and have a commitment to the other person. If you can share hope and you are kind to each other and you can forgive each other’s faults and you make that commitment to each other, then sex will follow. I couldn’t envisage a lifetime together with my wife without sex. It brings us closer together.

It’s the same with a gay couple. Who don’t have sex to produce offspring, but it’s still exactly the same because my wife and I don’t have sex for that reason either. But you are saying that gay sex and all those wonderful attributes that you mentioned do not go together. I can’t see how they can be separated.

I agree. And you’re right that it doesn’t have to include sex.

I appreciate you wrote a lot more, but this seems to encapsulate the differences in our approach. I do see marriage as simply about love and commitment. Having children can be done inside or outside marriage and I don’t have a problem with that (although I would assume that you would). Obviously people do have children after they are married, but I don’t accept that it should be the reason why they marry.

When my wife and I got married we didn’t think: Gee, I want babies with you so we should get shacked up. We got married because we felt we wanted to live the rest of lives together. It was only later (that afternoon to be precise) that we suddenly realised – hey, we’ll probably be having kids! How about we throw a few names around for the hell of it.

Personally I agree. I asked my wife if she’d marry me and the instant she said yes, as far as I was concerned there was a pact made between us. Until death do us part. I didn’t really need the marriage. It was superfluous to me. But Caz insisted she wanted a ceremony to ‘legalise it’. No problem. If that what someone wants to be legally classed as married, then I’ve got no problem with it.

Same with gay people. I don’t see the need personally, but if that’s what someone wants, I see no problem with it at all.

 

[livingwordunity]

But…I think they attack the Catholic church because the church teaches that their life is bad and sinful and that some Catholics try to interfere with their getting married or adopting children, etc, by protesting, etc…
If they attack the church, I think it’s because they feel the church attacks them.

I think they might say…they’d stop attacking the church if the church would stop attacking them?

I think we should ask the ones who want to change the definition of marriage where marriage came from in the first place. It wasn’t from them. Therefore, they have no authority to change it.

 

[livingwordunity]

You’re obviously entitled to that view, but it is obviously a religious viewpoint. If you believe marriage should be a religious institution, then a Christian marriage could not include gay people.

However, I believe that marriage is a secular institiution and cannot therefore rely on religious viewpoints to dictate its form.

If you think that it should, then the question will arise: which religion’s viewpoint should take precedence.

It’s not just a religious point of view. It’s also a biological fact of nature that men only have one sex organ, the penis. And women only have one sex organ, the vagina. The female sex organ naturally accommodates the male sex organ. The anus isn’t a sex organ and neither is the mouth. So, sex organ to sex organ, men and women biologically fit together. And this union of the two becoming one flesh becomes literally one flesh when a child is conceived from the union. The love between a husband and wife becomes so real that if they are open to life typically 9 months later they name it.

 

[PeterJohn]

No. You can have sex with an inanimate object if that floats your boat. But take it from me, sex is a lot better if you are in love and have a commitment to the other person. If you can share hope and you are kind to each other and you can forgive each other’s faults and you make that commitment to each other, then sex will follow. I couldn’t envisage a lifetime together with my wife without sex. It brings us closer together.

It’s the same with a gay couple. Who don’t have sex to produce offspring, but it’s still exactly the same because my wife and I don’t have sex for that reason either. But you are saying that gay sex and all those wonderful attributes that you mentioned do not go together. I can’t see how they can be separated.

I agree. And you’re right that it doesn’t have to include sex.

I appreciate you wrote a lot more, but this seems to encapsulate the differences in our approach. I do see marriage as simply about love and commitment. Having children can be done inside or outside marriage and I don’t have a problem with that (although I would assume that you would). Obviously people do have children after they are married, but I don’t accept that it should be the reason why they marry.

When my wife and I got married we didn’t think: Gee, I want babies with you so we should get shacked up. We got married because we felt we wanted to live the rest of lives together. It was only later (that afternoon to be precise) that we suddenly realised – hey, we’ll probably be having kids! How about we throw a few names around for the hell of it.

Personally I agree. I asked my wife if she’d marry me and the instant she said yes, as far as I was concerned there was a pact made between us. To death do us part. I didn’t really need the marriage. It was superfluous to me. But Caz insisted she wanted a ceremony to ‘legalise it’. No problem. If that what someone wants to be legally classed as married, then I’ve got no problem with it.

Same with gay people. I don’t see the need personally, but if that’s what someone wants, I see no problem with it at all.

Perhaps ignorance to the problems we face in America is bliss.

 

[ChibiViolet]

Couldn’t they say the same of the Church?

What are you talking about?

 

[tm30]

You’re obviously entitled to that view, but it is obviously a religious viewpoint. If you believe marriage should be a religious institution, then a Christian marriage could not include gay people.

However, I believe that marriage is a secular institiution and cannot therefore rely on religious viewpoints to dictate its form.

If you think that it should, then the question will arise: which religion’s viewpoint should take precedence.

It’s a biological viewpoint. A male duck and a female duck get together and eggs are produced and ducklings are hatched. That’s nature.

A male duck and another male duck get together and they both die without issue. That’s a malfunction of nature.

It’s really not that difficult once we block out meaningless phrases like “gay marriage” and “marriage equality”. The state had it right for thousands and thousands of years. Not even the uber-deviants of the Roman Empire would dare approve of their emperors being married to their boy-toys. These are very special times however, and everyone will get their pony, regardless of its authenticity.

 

[Bradski]

It’s not just a religious point of view.

So we can agree that your previous viewpoints were based on religion. Can you tell me if you think that whatever form a marriage takes, it should be based on religious beliefs. If the answer to that is ‘yes’, then can you tell me which religion should make the decisions.

It’s also a biological fact of nature…

Now we can move on the any arguments regarding sex.

If two people want to have sex without thinking about conception, or being able to conceive, in any way they feel fit, then it has nothing to do with me as long as it doesn’t scare the horses. And to be blunt, it has nothing to do with you either.

If they want to get married, then the fact that they can’t procreate is meaningless if you don’t think that the main reason to get married is to have children. I don’t think it’s the main reason so the argument is meaningless.