Why is it so hard to debate gay marriage?

[Catholig]

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…

The use of Latin as the Liturgical Language is not a doctrinal matter, nor is priestly celibacy. And the fact that the early church celebrated in catacombs and peoples houses is also not a doctrinal matter. If you want to show some changing dogmas then please show them. Don’t try to compare apples and oranges.

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.

It’s hard to stop myself from being sarcastic but honestly you don’t understand anything. Every instance of changing dogma and doctrine you referenced to didn’t involve either. The use of latin is not a moral matter - nor is priestly celibacy which is simply a rule of the Church which she is free to dispense with if she so chooses.

As for the “let’s see if society thinks it works out” argument - the HOLY SPIRIT doesn’t change his mind. The Church CANNOT declare that something is sinful when it isn’t. The Church CANNOT change the sacraments. This is impossible and your statements are simply heretical.

Catholig

 

[Catholig]

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”.

He was opposing so called “civil unions” and while he used strong language to classify homosexuality as abnormal isn’t wrong in and of its self. As for the “horrible cancerous tumour in [sic] the body of society” bit - well, I probably wouldn’t use that exact language, but indeed if you look at the spreading of homosexual acceptance you might see it as cancerous. Certainly though he shouldn’t have been arrested for it. Unless he said - go out and kill, attack, or otherwise hurt homosexuals I don’t think I’d consider it “hate speech”.

As for what the CCC says - this man is talking about homosexual unions and their acceptance. It is not in contradiction with the CCC, which asks for compassion for those suffering from SSA, and who are aiming to live a chaste life. The CCC itself condemns homosexual actions - sexual relations being a vital part of marriage.

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.

Catholig

 

[Catholig]

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.

It is sad that instead of redefining marriage and such society focused more on emphasizing chastity and moral values. If it did so I’m sure that the rate of HIV’s transmission along with those of the other STDs would plummet. And I honestly believe this.

If we stopped handing out condoms and instead taught our young people chastity and NFP, If we taught them respect for themselves and for their parents, If we somehow made strip clubs and other such places once again socially unacceptable, If we cleaned up the television so that we don’t have all the junk we do now our society would benefit enormously in the long run.

Catholig

 

[Abira]

As for the “horrible cancerous tumour in [sic] the body of society” bit - well, I probably wouldn’t use that exact language, but indeed if you look at the spreading of homosexual acceptance you might see it as cancerous. Certainly though he shouldn’t have been arrested for it. Unless he said - go out and kill, attack, or otherwise hurt homosexuals I don’t think I’d consider it “hate speech”.

the effect that his language has on the people he is speaking about hurts their feelings and drives them further from the church - no good comes of it in the public ecular arena.

He should have chosen his words more wisely. I would hope the law would be just as effective when dealing with similar comments about Christianity for example…to incite hatred is not just to incite murder or injury… it is to incite hatred of a people…so the law did its job.

In my country this same law has protected Christians from hate filled rantings, I cannot benefit from these rights and deny them to anyone else. It is their free will to live as they choose and always has been irregardles of what the church thinks of their decisions.

 

[KarenNC]

It is sad that instead of redefining marriage and such society focused more on emphasizing chastity and moral values. If it did so I’m sure that the rate of HIV’s transmission along with those of the other STDs would plummet. And I honestly believe this.

If we stopped handing out condoms and instead taught our young people chastity and NFP, If we taught them respect for themselves and for their parents, If we somehow made strip clubs and other such places once again socially unacceptable, If we cleaned up the television so that we don’t have all the junk we do now our society would benefit enormously in the long run.

I certainly agree that our society separates sexual acts from responsibility and commitment and I believe that is very detrimental. The greatest threats to the family and to societal stability are the idea that marriage is temporary, that promiscuity is okay, that fidelity within marriage is optional, that one should (or, actually is entitled to) feel an emotional high at all times or the relationship should be discarded.

I agree that promoting marriage rather than promiscuity, reaffirming the connection of committed, responsible relationships to sexual activity, and teaching the worth and dignity of humans as individuals rather than as objects would make a great difference.

I see same sex marriage as a step in the right direction. Rather than saying no to homosexuals who actively want to take on the legal responsibilities and consequences of marriage, we should be encouraging them to do so, to create stable, long-lasting relationships. Encourage chastity before marriage if you want, but don’t then turn around and deny them the opportunity for that marriage legally (sacramentally is entirely up to the individual religion).

 

[Bennie_P]

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.

You added words to the CCC, choice is not excluded why someone may be homosexual. Unless you want to say it is an illness?

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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.

Uncontrolled immoral behavoir can be and should be considered “abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society”.
This is true if it would be uncontrolled immoral hetersexual or homosexual behavoirs. Accepting someone struggling with SSA and giving them support to overcome self-destructive behavoir shouldn’t be confused with tolerance of destructive lifestyle choices and behavoirs, deeply seated or not. If you truly love someone you just don’t sit back silently and let them destroy themselves, thier lives and the lives of the people that love them.

Gal 6:1-7 Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Bear ye one another’s burdens: and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ. For if any man think himself to be some thing, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every one prove his own work: and so he shall have glory in himself only and not in another. For every one shall bear his own burden. And let him that is instructed in the word communicate to him that instructeth him, in all good things. Be not deceived: God is not mocked.

 

[Abira]

You added words to the CCC, choice is not excluded why someone may be homosexual. Unless you want to say it is an illness?

I didn’t add words to it at all…rather than copy it from my hardback catechism I pasted it from worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/catechism.html

I didn’t cross reference it with that from the vatican site:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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.

so, I didn’t personally add anything to it myself on purpose.

S

 

[goofyjim]

I didn’t add words to it at all…rather than copy it from my hardback catechism I pasted it from worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/catechism.html

I didn’t cross reference it with that from the vatican site:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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.

so, I didn’t personally add anything to it myself on purpose.

S

I’ll jump in here. The first edition of the Catechism did include the statement that homosexuals do not choose their condition. Then the revised edition dropped the phrase. So what happened? Did God suddenly tell the hierarchy that homosexuals choose deliberately to be SSA? I liked the first edition better because it was the truth. Those with SSA do not choose to be SSA. Some may only regard it as an opinion but they were born with SSA.

 

[Catholig]

the effect that his language has on the people he is speaking about hurts their feelings and drives them further from the church - no good comes of it in the public ecular arena.

He should have chosen his words more wisely. I would hope the law would be just as effective when dealing with similar comments about Christianity for example…to incite hatred is not just to incite murder or injury… it is to incite hatred of a people…so the law did its job.

In my country this same law has protected Christians from hate filled rantings, I cannot benefit from these rights and deny them to anyone else. It is their free will to live as they choose and always has been irregardles of what the church thinks of their decisions.

Abira,

The point is that “cancerous” could (as I demonstrated) be applied to the homosexual agenda - and that it wasn’t hate speech. He never mentioned hurting people - he was talking about the effects that the acceptance of homosexuality can have on society. I think it is ridiculous that he was arrested for this.

And as for homosexuals’ “free will” to live as they choose - that’s their choice I suppose, but society shouldn’t have to redefine itself in order to accept their perverted behavior. We shouldn’t sanction their lifestyle by allowing them to “marry”, and we certainly shouldn’t show our children that this is “normal”. This is just another attack on Morality.

Catholig

 

[Catholig]

I see same sex marriage as a step in the right direction. Rather than saying no to homosexuals who actively want to take on the legal responsibilities and consequences of marriage, we should be encouraging them to do so, to create stable, long-lasting relationships. Encourage chastity before marriage if you want, but don’t then turn around and deny them the opportunity for that marriage legally (sacramentally is entirely up to the individual religion).

:dts: “Stable, long-lasting relationships” that will effect both my (hypothetical, future) children and theirs. “Stable, long-lasting relationships” that are approved by the government and contrary to my moral values. “Stable, long-lasting relationships” that, I believe, will truly be detrimental to society as a whole, because they run contrary to the laws and morals which Western Civilization has been built upon.

The fact is that Homosexual sex can never be chaste.

Catholig

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I’m not interested in the topic of gay marriage, but it seems that those who vehemently oppose it are religious. I believe it is best for me to be silent about my sentiments towards this.

With this post it is rather clear - you are hardly disinterested or silent.

 

[KarenNC]

** “Stable, long-lasting relationships” that will effect both my (hypothetical, future) children and theirs. **

In what way, precisely, does it hypothetically affect your hypothetical children? As for their children, how is having one’s parents legally married and therefore one enjoys a greater degree of protection under the law than if they are not, a detrimental effect?

"Stable, long-lasting relationships" that are approved by the government and contrary to my moral values.

Civil marriage is already allowed between divorced people, those who cannot participate in sexual acts, interfaith couples, people who practice contraception, greater degrees of consanguinity than are allowed by the Church, who engage in sexual acts that are contrary to church teaching, etc. These also run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church (and therefore presumably are contrary to yours). How is same sex marriage more of an issue than these?

The fact is that Homosexual sex can never be chaste.
.

There is no act engaged in by homosexuals that is not also done by at least some heterosexuals. If it is physically possible to do it, with or without “accessories,” I guarantee you that there are heterosexual married couples who are currently engaging in it. This is not an impediment to civil marriage. The Catholic teachings on chastity do not apply to the civil marriages of anyone in this country.

Remember that what we are discussing is civil marriage. The Church cannot be required to perform sacramental marriages for anyone unless they desire to do so, whether it is legally possible or not. This has been shown over and over for, at minimum, decades.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

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

Are you not aware that the definition of “marriage” has changed over the years? Women are not property anymore, different race couples can marry, inter-religious marriages are accepted, no arranged marriages anymore, etc… There was a time in the Middle Ages where it was only religious, then property matters created marriage via the state.

My “one person’s opinion” was a reference to BXVI, who as part of the DoF office he held before wrote those words “intrinsically disordered”. It is just one theologian’s view and not uniform across the entire church.

Look back at my first post on this thread, there is a slippery slope for same-gender-preference people, who in some people’s eyes are less than a full person just on this alone. History has been bloody when groups of people have moved in this direction (less than a full person) in regards to one (or more) groups of people.

 

[Riley259]

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?

Ask them if they’d be willing to read some convincing evidence for gay marriage’s destructive effects. A good place to start is by giving them a copy of “Male and Female He made them” by Robin Burnhoff and Mary Jo Anderson. The Catholic Answers tract on gay marriage might be helpful as well.

 

[Riley259]

** “Stable, long-lasting relationships” that will effect both my (hypothetical, future) children and theirs. **

In what way, precisely, does it hypothetically affect your hypothetical children? As for their children, how is having one’s parents legally married and therefore one enjoys a greater degree of protection under the law than if they are not, a detrimental effect?

"Stable, long-lasting relationships" that are approved by the government and contrary to my moral values.

Civil marriage is already allowed between divorced people, those who cannot participate in sexual acts, interfaith couples, people who practice contraception, greater degrees of consanguinity than are allowed by the Church, who engage in sexual acts that are contrary to church teaching, etc. These also run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church (and therefore presumably are contrary to yours). How is same sex marriage more of an issue than these?

The fact is that Homosexual sex can never be chaste.
.

There is no act engaged in by homosexuals that is not also done by at least some heterosexuals. If it is physically possible to do it, with or without “accessories,” I guarantee you that there are heterosexual married couples who are currently engaging in it. This is not an impediment to civil marriage. The Catholic teachings on chastity do not apply to the civil marriages of anyone in this country.

Remember that what we are discussing is civil marriage. The Church cannot be required to perform sacramental marriages for anyone unless they desire to do so, whether it is legally possible or not. This has been shown over and over for, at minimum, decades.

The acceptance and implementation of gay marriage in our society will ultimately harm the institution of marriage in general because gay marriage changes the definition of what a true marriage really is. Please read Theology of the Body by JPII or a more user friendly Theology of the Body Explained by Chris West for detailed reasons why this is so.

 

[Riley259]

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.

I realize the UU’s are an “inclusive” denomination and pride themselves (no pun intended) on affirming homosexual relations but please take the time to read why the Catholic church is against active homosexual relations and especially homosexual marriage. I challenge you to dig deep on this and then reflect on it.

 

[Catholig]

** “Stable, long-lasting relationships” that will effect both my (hypothetical, future) children and theirs. **

In what way, precisely, does it hypothetically affect your hypothetical children? As for their children, how is having one’s parents legally married and therefore one enjoys a greater degree of protection under the law than if they are not, a detrimental effect?

It would affect my hypothetical children, because they’d see it, and ask me “why are those two men kissing”. And while it might not affect my children’s moral foundation it certainly would expose them to the “world” at a much younger age.

Also when my hypothetical children get older - maybe to the teenage years, they’ll have to deal with “accepting” homosexuality and being “tolerant”. They’ll walk out the door and have their views challenged every day. They’ll be bombarded with the idea that they’re “homophobic” and that their religion is wrong on a daily basis.

As for how it’ll affect the homosexual couples children - they’ll be brought up in a house hold that thinks that homosexuality is fine, and that main stream morality is wrong.

"Stable, long-lasting relationships" that are approved by the government and contrary to my moral values.

Civil marriage is already allowed between divorced people, those who cannot participate in sexual acts,interfaith couples, people who practice contraception, greater degrees of consanguinity than are allowed by the Church, who engage in sexual acts that are contrary to church teaching, etc. These also run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church (and therefore presumably are contrary to yours). How is same sex marriage more of an issue than these?

I’m don’t accept the vast majority of your arguments or listed situations as valid. Maybe the first one.

• As for the second situation I don’t know what you mean by “those who cannot participate in sexual acts” - sterile couples? If that’s what you mean then you’re wrong. The Church would allow them to marry.
• And as for the next situation - the church recognizes inter faith marriages to a certain extent so this also isn’t against my religion.
• The government doesn’t know whether or not they are going to participate in contraception and isn’t condoning this practice by marrying them.
• I don’t know if this is true or not - I mean for one thing I don’t know the level of consanguinity that the Church allows for, and for another don’t many of the States prohibit anyone from marrying his cousin?

By the way why did you answer every contention I had but skipped the one about it homosexual marriages being in direct conflict with the foundation of Western Civilization? Maybe you should go back and answer it…

The fact is that Homosexual sex can never be chaste.
.

There is no act engaged in by homosexuals that is not also done by at least some heterosexuals. If it is physically possible to do it, with or without “accessories,” I guarantee you that there are heterosexual married couples who are currently engaging in it. This is not an impediment to civil marriage. The Catholic teachings on chastity do not apply to the civil marriages of anyone in this country.

Sad, but then again as I pointed out above the government isn’t condoning their actions - as it would if it were to re-write (and that is the key word) the laws to allow them to marry. That would in my book amount to endorsement.

Remember that what we are discussing is civil marriage. The Church cannot be required to perform sacramental marriages for anyone unless they desire to do so, whether it is legally possible or not. This has been shown over and over for, at minimum, decades.

Yes, I know that we are discussing civil marriages but that doesn’t change the fact that allowing them would affect all of society, and possibly religion in a detrimental way. You can’t just separate all these things and say that they don’t affect each other.

Catholig

 

[Bennie_P]

I’ll jump in here. The first edition of the Catechism did include the statement that homosexuals do not choose their condition. Then the revised edition dropped the phrase. So what happened? Did God suddenly tell the hierarchy that homosexuals choose deliberately to be SSA? I liked the first edition better because it was the truth. Those with SSA do not choose to be SSA. Some may only regard it as an opinion but they were born with SSA.

The First Edition in English had some faulty translations on many issues. It appears that someone had thier own agenda going on but it was caught, but it had already started some damage.

Being born with SSA has never been proven. Only one study that was ever done that makes that claim and it had been found to be very unscientific and full of flaws. Unfortunately through the mythology of “Gay Rights”, many have taken that myth to be “truth”, which has been a curse on those that don’t want to be “gay”, but are told they cannot do nothing about it. Bad science when you tell people they are born with a curse.

Saying that, SSA inclinations for many are undeniable and not fully explainable - but if you want to claim genetics has something to do with it, if that gene can be found them we can solve the problem of SSA by aborting all babies that the gene shows up in and forbid those that have the gene from procreating.:dts: Naaahhhhh!

 

[goofyjim]

The First Edition in English had some faulty translations on many issues. It appears that someone had thier own agenda going on but it was caught, but it had already started some damage.

Being born with SSA has never been proven. Only one study that was ever done that makes that claim and it had been found to be very unscientific and full of flaws. Unfortunately through the mythology of “Gay Rights”, many have taken that myth to be “truth”, which has been a curse on those that don’t want to be “gay”, but are told they cannot do nothing about it. Bad science when you tell people they are born with a curse.

Saying that, SSA inclinations for many are undeniable and not fully explainable - but if you want to claim genetics has something to do with it, if that gene can be found them we can solve the problem of SSA by aborting all babies that the gene shows up in and forbid those that have the gene from procreating.:dts: Naaahhhhh!

Where is the curse in finding your own gender attractive? And just because they haven’t found a genetic cause yet doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Look how long it took to find the alcoholism gene.

 

[edwest2]

People who are promoting gay marriage are promoting anarchy. The goal is not the right for gays to marry but for any combination and number of people to marry, thereby destroying marriage and the family. Google: “Beyond Gay Marriage.”

Also, among Catholics, the Bible and the Church are the ultimate authorities. Not “maybe-ism” “who-knows-ism” or “who-can-say-ism”.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, all people who do not follow Christ do not want to feel shame or guilt or sinfulness. They have simply wished these things away, but they are ignoring the Truth.

Why is it so hard? Because it’s not the way marriage should work. And just as they have the right to promote their beliefs, so do we.

God bless,
Ed