Why is it so hard to debate gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankieg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KarenNC said:
Civil marriage has nothing to do with sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
While I don’t really want to consider or argue the above statement right now I’d like to point out that my comment was in reference to a post made by NewUlm on a different thread, wherein he stated that he has no problem with gay marriage and thinks that the church will allow it in a hundred (or so) years.

Catholig
 
He_Man said:
We are getting ahead of ourselves in these debates if we do not first establish some agreed upon foundation.

For instance, God’s existence, His supremacy, and His teachings.

Otherwise, anything beyond that becomes futile. it is like trying to teach calculus to someone who can’t add.
Click to expand...
Fine. Don’t make it public policy.
 
Polaris said:
The church has the most truth not all of the truth. If it had all of it church doctrine would not devlope and you would still be part of the Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Uhhmm - I disagree. The Church is the pillar of truth. She does not only contain “part” of it.
Polaris said:
Church doctrine takes years to develop and people within the church always fights its development. At one time in the church a woman had no choice in her marriage, It was arranged and was the parents decision. She was little more then property. Was this wrong or just a step in development.
Click to expand...
So what you’re saying is that the church has been developing for 2,000 years and should have no problem with homosexual marriage, even though homosexual acts are condemned by the bible?

In any case I’d still like to argue about your assertion that the church viewed women as little more than property, and supported arranged marriages. We’ll need a couple of documents and a lot of context (to make sure it wasn’t just regional).
Polaris said:
The church also said at an earlier time that reason for marriage was the procreation of children that was all. It wasnt until recent church history that love and union between the spouse played any role almost approaching equality.
Click to expand...
Mind giving some more citations? Because while the Church believes that procreation is important, and that it is one of the two aspects of sexual relations (i.e. unitive and procreative) I don’t think she ever declared infallibly that procreation was the “only” reason for marriage. If it were she would have allowed annulments whenever one member of the couple was infertile.
Polaris said:
The church does change or developes its doctines over times it includes more and when it chages it say it has a better interpretation of those in the past. Someday the church may very well include marriage between to males or females. Many Jesuits today are today putting forth why it does not go against marriage . It may be wrong it may be right only time will tell.
Click to expand...
There will always be those that have heretical beliefs within the Church - in the past they were excommunicated but sadly that doesn’t happen too much any more. 😦

As for “marriage” between two men or two women - we can never allow that without destroying the structure of the Church (i.e. the domestic church), and negating the bible + 2000 years of doctrine.

Catholig
 
frankieg said:
Every time i try to debate gay marriage i feel like i can’t give a good answer to people who don’t believe in God. Does gay marriage really effect me personally? How can i help someone who believes church and state should be seperate understand my point of view?
Click to expand...
This article might help:

www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

It’s entitled The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.

It might also help to read the entry on Jimmy Akin’s blog entitled Curse of the Black Widow (scroll about 2/3 of the way down):

members.cox.net/jimmyakin/x-archives-040410.htm

There’s also an article on the End of Marriage in Scandinavia in The Weekly Standard, volume 9, issue 20. I can’t get the web address to copy and paste, but I’m sure you can google it.

Hope these help!
 
KarenNC said:
Civil marriage has nothing to do with sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
exactly. In a sense religion is totally irrelevent in this conversation… I think the OP mentioned having to defend his stance to some friends…

the point is that to those people who choose to live a secular life, in whatever way they choose, they should not be bound by church morality because they have the free will to choose their own path.

To those that bind themself to church morality and are religious, they have no right to impose restrictions on someone who does not accept religion.

This is where the frustration stems from… the following is not my personal view, but I can understand how they see it:

They myst be thinking: how can these people, who we believe are wrong, limit what me and my partner can and cannot do? just as they have the right to live in the way they see as right, we have the right to live as we see as right. If we want to commit in a civil ceremony then get out of our way… you have the religious ceremonies for your own use…

I would think carefully before arguing against their human right to do this and to speak freely, there may come a day when people of religion may need to use these same laws to express their own opinions in public, or to act in a way that others hate in public also.

This is why it is hard to debate gay marriage to your friends using religion… they are CIVIL ceremonies and not religious ceremonies… non religious people see it as sticking your nose in and see that since gay people are usually non religious, they have rejected church authority over them, so it is irrelevent.

There is no debate the church can have over CIVIL ceremonies… that is societies secular place to discuss secular ceremonies.
 
The legitimation of homosexuality strikes at our fundamental human nature by promoting perverted (a moral judgement) and unhealthy (a physical consequence) behavior as (1) societally acceptable - as acceptable as normal biological (heterosexual) behavior; (2) psychologically healthy (which couldn’t be less truthful); and, (3) spiritually awakening (in fact, the opposite is true). It takes a fundamental truth, of the nature of female and male, and flips it on its head portraying it as something of which it is its opposite. Until the last half century, few would even have contemplated a need to discuss or debate whether sodomy was a healthy social behavior, let alone a fundamental societal institution. The perverse nature of homosexual behavior was recognized as self-evident and any suggestion that such behavior was the equivalent of the institution (sacrament) of marriage was recognized as ludicrous.

Congratulate Lucifer for capitalizing on a fundamental moral weakness of humans to embrace sin to the extreme of no longer recognizing when it kills us both physically (STDs, AIDS) and more importantly, spiritually. Attempts (and unfortunate successes) at fully legitimating homosexual behavior under the (dis)guise of marriage promotes extreme sin, confuses an already morally confused and selfish society, and finally, undermines the expression of a fundamental Truth in the practice of the sacrament of marriage.

Why is it so hard to debate gay marriage? Because too few these days undertand the fundamental truths of our existence due to their own selfishly-motivated moral confusion. As a result, where do you start in trying to convince such people?
 
Catholig said:
That may be in the U.S. but in many places in Europe Pastors are arrested for speaking out against homosexuality.
Click to expand...
oh, were we talking about europe? i’m sorry; i forget that people come from other places besides my place. 😊
 
rpp said:
You are correct when you describe this as a human rights issue, but not in the way you intended. It is wrong to expose children to disordered and deviant behavior.
Click to expand...
Only if you hold to preconceived stereotypes. Like other posters have said, this is an civil issue right now. The RCC and every other church has the option to do or not to do their own ceremonies.

The “disordered” term is just one person’s opinion in the RCC and there is still ongoing discussion about it.
 
Catholig said:
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html

There’s one. Took me a few seconds to find, but just. Besides that I know that I saw a reference to this situation on mainstream television.

Catholig
Click to expand...
Firstly, he was not arrested for ‘speaking out’ against homosexuality.

He was arrested for inciting hatred against a group of people…and this would be applied equally to all people whoever they are and whoever they are talking about.

his quote from your article:
During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as “abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society”.

This excerpt sounds very angry and hatefilled…I agree one hundred per cent with his sentence…I believe it is inkeeping with your own churches ideas on the matter:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

This man hardly sounds respectful, compassionate or sensitive.
 
iceman said:
Congratulate Lucifer for capitalizing on a fundamental moral weakness of humans to embrace sin to the extreme of no longer recognizing when it kills us both physically (STDs, AIDS) and more importantly, spiritually.
Click to expand...
The risky behavior that lends itself to the transmission of HIV and STDs are hardly unique to the homosexual population nor engaged in by 100% of either the homosexual or heterosexual population. Such risk in heterosexuals is much less if the person is part of a monogamous lifelong relationship. Don’t see any reason why one should expect any different among homosexuals who are part of a monogamous lifelong relationship. Looks to me as if it would therefore be in society’s best interest to support such.
 
Catholig said:
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html

There’s one. Took me a few seconds to find, but just. Besides that I know that I saw a reference to this situation on mainstream television.
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn…2005Jan28.html

One Sunday in the summer of 2003, the Rev. Ake Green, a Pentecostal pastor, stepped into the pulpit of his small church in the southern Swedish village of Borgholm. There, the 63-year-old clergyman delivered a sermon denouncing homosexuality as “a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society” and condemning Sweden’s plan to allow gays to form legally recognized partnerships.

“Our country is facing a disaster of great proportions,” he told the 75 parishioners at the service. “Sexually twisted people will rape animals,” Green declared, and homosexuals “open the door to forbidden areas,” such as pedophilia.

With these words, which the local newspaper published at his request, Green ran afoul of Sweden’s strict laws against hate speech. He was indicted, convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail. He remains free pending appeal."

And in the same newspaper you quoted:
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05112902.html

"Sweden’s Supreme Court has acquitted Pastor Ake Green of a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals. The 5-0 ruling, handed down today, maintained that Green’s sermon was protected by freedom of speech and religion…

Chair of the court, Justice Johan Munck, commenting on the case, said that the judges had taken into consideration earlier judgements passed down by the Court of the European Union in Strassbourg, France. “If Ake Green had been convicted for incitement due to his sermon, then in all probability Sweden would have been rebuked in the European Court,” Munck said.

In an interview with Swedish Radio/Television, Munck added, “Considering the circumstances at hand, the Supreme Court finds that it’s likely that the European Court – if it were to adjudicate the case – would find it to be a violation of the European Conventions if Ake Green were convicted due to the statements in his sermon.”

Green, pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, was given a 30-day suspended sentence in July, 2004, by a Swedish court for inciting hatred against homosexuals. He was prosecuted in January 2004 for “hate speech against homosexuals” for his sermon. In February 2005, an appeals court overturned the conviction, saying it is not unlawful to preach ones beliefs from the pulpit. "

continued
 
KarenNC said:
The risky behavior that lends itself to the transmission of HIV and STDs are hardly unique to the homosexual population nor engaged in by 100% of either the homosexual or heterosexual population. Such risk in heterosexuals is much less if the person is part of a monogamous lifelong relationship. Don’t see any reason why one should expect any different among homosexuals who are part of a monogamous lifelong relationship. Looks to me as if it would therefore be in society’s best interest to support such.
Click to expand...
it’s also worth noting that, while in the west it is more common for homosexual men to have STD’s it is not more common for homosexual women.

In other countries, well most other countries, STD’s and AIDS are more of a problem for heterosexuals who sleep around than they are for homosexuals who are more isolated and therefor do not spread the disease… it does not have the connotation as a moral punishment in countried where it can be passed in other ways…

also in the west STD’s are faster growing in straight teenagers as they have not been warned and warned about AIDS and STD’s, feeling that this is not their concern.
 
Continued from above
Let’s take a look at the list of folks in the article that is linked to the above article listing other examples
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04043006.html.

First:
“Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and “reorientate” themselves.”

Here’s the article in the Telegraph that is referenced–http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html

The comments were made in the local newspaper, and the police received a complaint which they were investigating. A follow-up

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3255461.stm
"Cheshire Constabulary spoke to the bishop after receiving a complaint about the comments from a member of the public.
But on Monday evening, a police spokesman confirmed that no action would be taken . He said: “The Crown Prosecution Service has been consulted at length and the Cheshire constabulary is satisfied that no criminal offences have been committed.”

Second:
Ake Green—already discussed

Third:
Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country’s discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church’s teaching published in a Belgium magazine. (CWNews.com, 01/26/04)

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27229
"Cardinal Gustaaf Joos told a Belgian magazine, “I am willing to write in my own blood that of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of five to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are just sexual perverts.”

Note that he faced a lawsuit from a private organization over this, not threat of arrest by police. Was it ever actually filed? Was it resolved prior to his death? It also says that “The Belgian bishops’ conference said Cardinal Joos was speaking in a private capacity.” Sounds like the other bishops weren’t exactly in favor of his statements either.

Fourth:
“Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (Washington Post, 01/03/04)”

Unable to find something that is from a regular news source to tell me exactly what he said, who is filing the suit, how it was resolved. Free access to articles in the Post only go back 60 days and this is three years old. Can anyone point me to the actual remarks, to who filed the suit or what the resolution of the suit was?

Fifth:
“In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican’s publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)”

“Could face?” Was anyone actually prosecuted? What was the result of such if it happened? Was it thrown out or dismissed as all the other examples I have found?
 
Catholig said:
As for “marriage” between two men or two women - we can never allow that without destroying the structure of the Church (i.e. the domestic church), and negating the bible + 2000 years of doctrine.

Catholig
Click to expand...
How so? Some dogmas have changed over time, the RCC of today is the RCC of 300 or earlier. Priests could marry until 1500 or so, early Christian services first started out at people’s houses, Latin was a later addition from the start of the RCC, etc…

In this case, we have other Christian dominations doing “trial runs” for us. While there are internal disagreements there, the sky has not fallen. We also have the civil unions which we can watch and get statistics for in coming years in a few areas.

This is a fluid debate and perceptions will change over time. The debate of today is not the debate of 10 years or 100 years from now.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Only if you hold to preconceived stereotypes. Like other posters have said, this is an civil issue right now. The RCC and every other church has the option to do or not to do their own ceremonies.

The “disordered” term is just one person’s opinion in the RCC and there is still ongoing discussion about it.
Click to expand...
The thing people miss - that I tried to point out is that the allowance of gay “marriage” effects everyone in society because it shows it to be normal. It makes it more open, and more “acceptable”. And it is NOT their right to redefine marriage.

As for your saying that this is just one persons opinion the Church views homosexual acts as MORTAL SINS. The church cannot error in matters of faith. Therefore she cannot say that something is sinful when it isn’t or vice versa. It would be the Holy Spirit - who guides the Church and in particular the pope - contradicting himself. Any “on going discussion” is that of heretics trying to scatter the sheep.

Catholig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top