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

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Biblepoe said:
Oh no! Children were taught that marriage laws applied to gay couples. The horror!
Click to expand...
Bible,

Wow…for you to admit that it is horror to teach children about marriage and homosexual in the same breath took courage…you have truly made me think…:extrahappy::tiphat::clapping:
 
Rose_Maniple said:
when I was received into the Anglican Communion, one of the biggest day-to-day changes for me was receiving Communion under both species, something I had previously done only during Triduum or on Sundays when I attended a Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Many of my American RC acquaintances were surprised when I enthused about this, since for them that was SOP and not something that differentiated them from Episcopalians.
Click to expand...
The quote is from another thread, but I post it to inquire as to whether you are now studying (or about to study) to be a Roman Catholic priest, or a priest in another faith tradition?
 
livingwordunity said:
Do you believe that the definition of marriage should always be up for debate?
Click to expand...
Yes. For example, Loving v Virginia in 1967 changed the definition of marriage from “One man and one woman of the same race” to “one man and one woman.” It removed the anti-miscegenation laws that were in place in some parts of the USA at that time.

Do you think that was a good change or a bad change to the legal definition of marriage?

rossum
 
Rose_Maniple said:
Well apparently not, since some of us don’t "get it
Click to expand...
Kinda hard to miss seeing as this is the way humans have existed since the start of time.
What do you think “relations” means? Do you associate only with people of the opposite sex, or are you just making assumptions about the sexual acts other people may or may not be participating in?
Click to expand...
How can same sex acts be justified as normal and morally licit? I do not have to assume anything here we are talking about homosexual acts. Are you unfamiliar with these issues?
Oh, so gay couples can conceive now? Or is this one of your “self-evident” assertions? (More on the circularity of the marriage-is-for-a-man-and-a-woman-because-a-man-and-a-woman-make-a-marriage lark).
Click to expand...
There is nothing circular here. Male and female is the norm. This is self evident. Individual male and females may be sterile but they still are ordered toward procreation by their very design. Same sex persons can never be ordered that way. Any attempt to compare these issue is quite absurd.
The difference, of course, being that it is their having a family which you hold to be a sin (and not an “objective” sin, because after all your own family is hunkey-dorey). If you were producing pornography or cheating on your taxes while condemning it as a sin for other people, then yes, your objection to the pornographer/cheat would be as inconsistent as your objection to the gay married couple. The pornographer, in order to garner your disapproval, has to commit a positive act of immorality: i.e. producing pornography and exploiting his “models” &c &c. The gay couple has only to follow the same standard of “fidelity within, abstinence without” which you hold yourself to! “They tie on heavy burdens and do not lift a finger,” indeed!
Click to expand...
Having a family is not a sin. Pretending a family is simply some contrived social construct that can be manipulated is a sin. In fact a very evil ideology. That people involved in such things act politely and do not burn down their neighbors house does not make such things good.

My ananlogy stands quite well here. Just because people conform to some minimal polite secular conventions does not make immoral actions moral or healthy.
I’m getting a bit exasperated with the naive/dismissive routine. I am able to affirm the Biblical truths “It is not good for the man to be alone” or “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” without attaching to them the asterisks you need to. You want to say to gays, “Oh sorry, God was actually just talking about us. Trust me, we’re tight, I know what he *meant *to say.” What about that is presenting you with difficulty? Any more smug nonvocal syllables to throw at me?
Click to expand...
You throw out the Church, common sense, right reason, history, Tradition, Scripture, and then claim your position is correct based on your feelings. No sale.
 
rossum said:
Yes. For example, Loving v Virginia in 1967 changed the definition of marriage from “One man and one woman of the same race” to “one man and one woman.” It removed the anti-miscegenation laws that were in place in some parts of the USA at that time.

Do you think that was a good change or a bad change to the legal definition of marriage?

rossum
Click to expand...
Rossum,

Good point, because Loving vs Virginia cited Skinner vs Oklahoma in stating that there is a “right to marry”. Skinner vs Oklahoma stated that “marriage and procreation” are a right.

Glad you brought that up. This is not necessarily a definition, rather a clarification.

Race is not an impediment to marry and procreate. Loving vs Virginia was a case where white supremacist were trying to prevent dilution of the supposed white race. Skinnner vs Oklahoma was about sterilizing prisoners before release believing they would “marry and procreate” criminals.

This is clarification not definition.
 
CopticChristian said:
Biblepoe;9508253:
Oh no! Children were taught that marriage laws applied to gay couples. The horror!
Click to expand...
Bible,

Wow…for you to admit that it is horror to teach children about marriage and homosexual in the same breath took courage…you have truly made me think…:extrahappy::tiphat::clapping:
Click to expand...
I was trying to bring a little humor into the thread. I don’t seriously believe that teaching children that marriage law applied to gay couples is some horrible thing that will harm children or anything like that.
 
livingwordunity said:
Do you believe that the definition of marriage should always be up for debate?
Click to expand...
rossum said:
Yes. For example, Loving v Virginia in 1967 changed the definition of marriage from “One man and one woman of the same race” to “one man and one woman.” It removed the anti-miscegenation laws that were in place in some parts of the USA at that time.
Click to expand...
That’s no different than what Proposition 8 did. It returned the definition of marriage back to the original biblical and historical definition of “one man and one woman”. The bible doesn’t classify people by their skin color the way people do today. So if you agree with that 1967 decision I don’t know why you are against Proposition 8 which does the same thing.
 
Why compare Loving v. Virginia with so-called same-sex marriage!?
If anything, the civil rights movement is NOTHING like homosexism! To compare the two is highly INSULTING and CONDESCENDING to the former!
 
Crescentinus said:
Why compare Loving v. Virginia with so-called same-sex marriage!?
If anything, the civil rights movement is NOTHING like homosexism! To compare the two is highly INSULTING and CONDESCENDING to the former!
Click to expand...
Cres,

Homosexual bring up Loving vs Virginia because it states “the right to Marry”…however they unfortunately do not recognize that what is cited as that right is Skinner vs Oklahoma. Bringing Loving vs Virginia into the discussion is playing the race card…

You see they prevented people of color from being married and declared that there is a right to marry…well yeah you say…but the right to marry in Loving vs Virginia had to to with limiting procreation and the right cited is based on Oklahoma that says " the right to marry and procreate"…they only know what they have been taught…

It is like 2tim 316 all Scripture is inspired…but that only refers to the OT…and it is the same blind logic here.
 
Rose_Maniple said:
This is the problem: the Magisterium uses the language of “objective” disorder for same-sex relationships. Except as noted above, the only thing that makes sex “homosexual” is its being done by two persons of one gender. So the objection isn’t to the objective moral content of the relationship - after all, replace your gay spouse with an opposite sex one and do all the same generative/unitive/domestic stuff with them, and you’re all clear according to the Pope. The alleged immorality then, is not in the object of the “behaviour” but in the “wrong” subject doing them. And therein lies the rub. Are “gay activist” Christians “attacking” the Church, or simply subscribing to her doctrines more consistently than she herself does?
Click to expand...
Like most Catholic answers, Rose, it’s not either/or but both/and.

The “alleged immorality” is objectively disordered–it is, as you correctly limn, the fact that it’s being done by two persons of one gender that makes it disordered. And it is also subjectively disordered. That is, the wrong subjects are doing the act.
 
CopticChristian said:
Cres,

Homosexual bring up Loving vs Virginia because it states “the right to Marry”…however they unfortunately do not recognize that what is cited as that right is Skinner vs Oklahoma. Bringing Loving vs Virginia into the discussion is playing the race card…

You see they prevented people of color from being married and declared that there is a right to marry…well yeah you say…but the right to marry in Loving vs Virginia had to to with limiting procreation and the right cited is based on Oklahoma that says " the right to marry and procreate"…they only know what they have been taught…

It is like 2tim 316 all Scripture is inspired…but that only refers to the OT…and it is the same blind logic here.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

“It is untenable to suggest that the treatment of homosexuals in this country bears any resemblance to that of Black people. It is insufferable to hear that the prohibition against gay marriage is the logical equivalent of now invalid laws against interracial marriage. The Black American experience is one of overcoming racism and ethnic hatred. There is no group - no group - that has been faced with, nor overcome, the obstacles that Black people have experienced in America. But specifically, homosexuals in America have no history of racial enslavement or resulting economic oppression. The bottom line is that it is offensive and racially insensitive for gay marriage proponents to argue that their movement finds its ideological roots in the struggle for Black equality.” maria.4marks.com/forums/topics/posts.html?topic_id=161890;offset=50
 
livingwordunity said:
That’s no different than what Proposition 8 did. It returned the definition of marriage back to the original biblical and historical definition of “one man and one woman”.
Click to expand...
Please read your Bible. How many wives did David have? How many wives did Solomon have? The Bible was against marriage between spouses from different groups:
Ezra 9:1-2 And after these things were accomplished, the princes came to me, saying: The people of Israel, and the priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, and from their abominations, namely, of the Chanaanites, and the Hethites, and the Pherezites, and the Jebusites, and the Ammonites, and the Moabites, and the Egyptians, and the Amorrhites.

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, and they have mingled the holy seed with the people of the lands. And the hand of the princes and magistrates hath been first in this transgression.

and
Nehemiah 13:27 And shall we also be disobedient and do all this great evil to transgress against our God, and marry strange women?

Those people who were against interracial marriages could find support in the Bible. There is no single “original biblical” definition of marriage, since the Bible contains different versions of marriage.
The bible doesn’t classify people by their skin color the way people do today.
Click to expand...
But it does classify them by tribe/nation. “The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever” - Deuteronomy 23:3.

I suggest that you study the Bible more closely. It does not always say what you seem to think it says.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Please read your Bible. How many wives did David have? How many wives did Solomon have? The Bible was against marriage between spouses from different groups:
Ezra 9:1-2 And after these things were accomplished, the princes came to me, saying: The people of Israel, and the priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, and from their abominations, namely, of the Chanaanites, and the Hethites, and the Pherezites, and the Jebusites, and the Ammonites, and the Moabites, and the Egyptians, and the Amorrhites.

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, and they have mingled the holy seed with the people of the lands. And the hand of the princes and magistrates hath been first in this transgression.

and
Nehemiah 13:27 And shall we also be disobedient and do all this great evil to transgress against our God, and marry strange women?

Those people who were against interracial marriages could find support in the Bible. There is no single “original biblical” definition of marriage, since the Bible contains different versions of marriage.

But it does classify them by tribe/nation. “The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever” - Deuteronomy 23:3.

I suggest that you study the Bible more closely. It does not always say what you seem to think it says.
rossum
Click to expand...
Ross,

You have pointed out the problem of Sola Scriptura and those that look to the Bible alone, to argue over what the Bible says, is a Protestant issue. The OHCAC has a Magesterium that bases teachings on judgement based on Scripture and Tradition. Bible study is urged, however the teachings do not contradict Scripture.🙂
 
rossum said:
I suggest that you study the Bible more closely. It does not always say what you seem to think it says.

rossum
Click to expand...
Perhaps, rossum, you were under the misapprehension that you were in dialogue with Fundamentalist Christians here?

Catholics, of course, do not use the Bible as the source of our beliefs. Rather, the Bible supports that which was already proclaimed by the Apostles.

We are blessed with the Church “to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.”–Pope B16.
 
rossum said:
Please read your Bible. How many wives did David have? How many wives did Solomon have? The Bible was against marriage between spouses from different groups:
Ezra 9:1-2 And after these things were accomplished, the princes came to me, saying: The people of Israel, and the priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, and from their abominations, namely, of the Chanaanites, and the Hethites, and the Pherezites, and the Jebusites, and the Ammonites, and the Moabites, and the Egyptians, and the Amorrhites.

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, and they have mingled the holy seed with the people of the lands. And the hand of the princes and magistrates hath been first in this transgression.

and
Nehemiah 13:27 And shall we also be disobedient and do all this great evil to transgress against our God, and marry strange women?

Those people who were against interracial marriages could find support in the Bible. There is no single “original biblical” definition of marriage, since the Bible contains different versions of marriage.

But it does classify them by tribe/nation. “The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever” - Deuteronomy 23:3.

I suggest that you study the Bible more closely. It does not always say what you seem to think it says.

rossum
Click to expand...
In the beginning was Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. God’s chosen people, the Jews and Jewish laws came later.

Jews weren’t allowed to marry out because the other races of people had foreign gods that they worshiped and God didn’t want them to be tempted to worship those false gods and idols. The reason for the prohibition was religion.

The Old Covenant of people of God, the Jews, prefigured what was later fulfilled by the Church in the New Covenant. And the Church is open to all races. When Jesus was asked about marriage, he took us back to the beginning, back to Adam and Eve.
 
livingwordunity said:
In the beginning was Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. God’s chosen people, the Jews and Jewish laws came later.

Jews weren’t allowed to marry out because the other races of people had foreign gods that they worshiped and God didn’t want them to be tempted to worship those false gods and idols. The reason for the prohibition was religion.

The Old Covenant of people of God, the Jews, prefigured what was later fulfilled by the Church in the New Covenant. And the Church is open to all races. When Jesus was asked about marriage, he took us back to the beginning, back to Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Excellent. We are agreed that the Bible contains different versions of marriage.

rossum
 
In the beginning there was only one kind of marriage, Adam and Eve. When Jesus (God himself) was asked about marriage, he said it should be as it was in the beginning. There’s no such thing as so-called “gay marriage” or anything like it anywhere in the Bible. The prohibition that Jews had for marriage to Gentile races was because of religion. But Jesus welcomed Gentiles into the Church. Protestant Christians have the New and Old Testament, not just the Old Testament. And Catholics have it even better since we have the the Old and New Testament plus the wisdom of the living Magisterium of the Church which comes directly from God.
 
rossum said:
Excellent. We are agreed that the Bible contains different versions of marriage.

rossum
Click to expand...
You can find old cook-books that have recipes containing raw eggs, too. Doesn’t mean that they’re still ok to eat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top