lol read the thread back and find out… it is in fact totally unrelated to the theory of gay marriage… it was an aside someone brought up and another questioned, either that or PM me cos the thread was diverging there anyways.What scientific theories are you taking about? Are you saying that there is a scientific theory about gay “marriage”?
NewUlm, you’re mistaken - just as you were mistaken about the use of Latin as the liturgical language of the Roman Rite and priestly celibacy being examples of dogmatic evolution rather than ecclesiastical laws.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.
Homosexual people aren’t any less of a person - but to support a person in doing something that is immoral and that could lead to his eternal damnation isn’t helping them. We should not concede to changing the definition of marriage.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.
Lv 18:22:For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
Lv 20:13:Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.
CatholigIf any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.
Libera nos a malo made a good points though.liberanosimalo…
the actual question was why is it so hard to DEBATE gay marriage… so your above points are not reverting back to the OP as you set out to do…I think everyone’s getting sidetracked.
The Church, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn’t have to fill quotas. However I do agree that there is a difference between those faithful catholics who deal with SSA and accept the Church’s teaching and those people who commit adultery and violate the natural law by their homosexual lifestyle.also the church should hire homosexuals who are strong in their faith and celibate… they should not hire gay people who identify as gay and live the lifestyle… they are two seperate things.
Adultery, cohabitation, sex outside of marriage, and birth control are all hot topics - but in my opinion the reason why Homosexual “marriage” seems to be much hotter is because of their demands. Disagree if you will but they are demanding that the laws be changed and that we run against 2,000 years of history.the reason it’s hard to debate gay marriage is that it provokes a hot reaction from everyone whatever their view. Adultery, cohabitation, sex outside of marriage and birth control…although ‘hot’ topics… do not provoke such anger. So to answer the OP, this is why it is hard to debate.
ok good point… so you feel that is adultery etc was politicised in a movement then it would have the same reaction in debates?Adultery, cohabitation, sex outside of marriage, and birth control are all hot topics - but in my opinion the reason why Homosexual “marriage” seems to be much hotter is because of their demands. Disagree if you will but they are demanding that the laws be changed and that we run against 2,000 years of history.
Catholig
I, for one, am in defiance of the odds you state. I have never used drugs, I have no STDs, and am not a likely sex offender no matter what anyone out there tries to say I am. Barring any normal health problems, I am expected to live as long a life as anybody else. Did one ever consider that if two homosexual males who both tested negative for any STDs stayed faithful to each other then they would never have any more chance of contracting anything than a heterosexual couple would? But we as a society drive them into promiscuity. They don’t choose that on their own. And promiscuous heterosexuals are just as likely to contract STDs, including AIDS, yet we don’t mind insuring them and their partners. So maybe we should screen everyone to see if they have been faithful to one partner their whole life, otherwise deny them insurance.All theories about natural law and homosexual predisposition aside, this post is about gay “marriage.” And the question is why people who live their lives completely against the normal physical and cultural mainstream now demand that their unions be officially recognized. This from a group that refers to heteros in a sneering way as “breeders.” (Look it up.)
You can designate anyone as your next of kin. You can legally leave everything to the neighbor’s dog if you want to. You can own a home with anyone you choose. Most of the legal benefits of marriage can already be dealt with if one chooses to be part of a homosexual couple.
But health insurance is another thing. And yes, check out the actuary tables. It’s NOT a healthy lifestyle overall. As a demographic group, homosexuals are unhealthier and have shorter lives than heteros. Lesbians are more prone to drink and smoke than hetero women and have higher rates of breast and other cancers. (No, don’t tell me about Aunt Tilly who was married to a man and drank herself to death and was smoking in her coffin. It’s not material to the actuary tables.)
Homosexual men have significantly shorter life expectancies than hetero married men. They are more prone to drug usage, AIDS, STDs, illness, and death by violence.
Marriage will not cure this. Their definition of marriage and monogamy is a bit “different” than most heteros would tolerate. Especially male homosexuals. Don’t believe me…? There’s a whole lot out there on the web that would back this up if you want to slog through the swamp of stories and statistics. I’m not going to track the filth back here onto this site.
The fact is, God always forgives. People sometimes. Nature… never!
So having said this, why does it matter if “marriage” becomes open to everyone? One poster here claimed that the Catholic Church would never be legally required to do homosexual marriages. Oh really?
In our legal system, once something is allowed, it’s a short step for it to become mandated. Who would have thought a few decades ago that health providers at Catholic hospitals would be required to spend thousands of dollars defending their right NOT to do abortions and sterilizations in their own hospitals? Or now dioceses across the country are being told they MUST provide contraception coverage in their health plans. Once the law inserts itself into this debate, it paves the way for old St. Mary’s parish to be required to provide abortion coverage for the teachers and other employees in the parish school and church office.
And then it puts the Catholic Church in the position of being required to hire homosexuals, or be accused of discriminatory hiring practices. Can no one see the irony here, as the US lambastes the Church for past pedophilia problems that they would now be REQUIRED to hire a demographic that is more likely than heteros to be sex offenders?
And it’s only a hop skip and a jump to where an orthodox traditional and faithful priest will be charged with a “hate crime” for voicing Church teaching on homosexuality in a sermon.
Don’t think it can happen? Read some recent legal precedents if you’re that naive.
Yes, if there were adultery pride parades and adulterers wanted to change the law to make it more acceptable (not that it really isn’t now - but it could be worse) then people would feel it to be more of a threat to the family (i.e. the domestic church), their children, and society in general.ok good point… so you feel that is adultery etc was politicised in a movement then it would have the same reaction in debates?
so in essence this is a religious response to western politics.
I have also noticed on the forum there is great hostility towards any change in the law regarding abortion, so there may be a simple link there.
Hopefully your are just playing the devil’s advocate, and aren’t supporting homosexual marriage or any other view that is contrary to the Church.I, for one, am in defiance of the odds you state. I have never used drugs, I have no STDs, and am not a likely sex offender no matter what anyone out there tries to say I am. Barring any normal health problems, I am expected to live as long a life as anybody else. Did one ever consider that if two homosexual males who both tested negative for any STDs stayed faithful to each other then they would never have any more chance of contracting anything than a heterosexual couple would? But we as a society drive them into promiscuity. They don’t choose that on their own. And promiscuous heterosexuals are just as likely to contract STDs, including AIDS, yet we don’t mind insuring them and their partners. So maybe we should screen everyone to see if they have been faithful to one partner their whole life, otherwise deny them insurance.
I agree with a lot you say goofyjim but I don’t believe society drives practicing homosexuals into promiscuity. I also am an exception that disproves the rule of a lot of statistics being branded about but…But we as a society drive them into promiscuity. They don’t choose that on their own. And promiscuous heterosexuals are just as likely to contract STDs, including AIDS, yet we don’t mind insuring them and their partners. So maybe we should screen everyone to see if they have been faithful to one partner their whole life, otherwise deny them insurance.
I am ambivalent about calling it a marriage. Promiscuous heterosexuals have short life spans too. And there are just as many of them as there are homosexuals. I can’t believe there is any shorter lifespan among homosexuals except for the fact that we throw the stones in one direction and help them do something like commit suicide. If they are promiscuous, yes they will contract diseases. But they are capable of forming lifelong partnerships.Hopefully your are just playing the devil’s advocate, and aren’t supporting homosexual marriage or any other view that is contrary to the Church.
All that liberanosamalo was pointing out was that studies show that homosexuals as a group have shorter life spans. Though that isn’t to say that there aren’t promiscuous heterosexuals.
Also I think that to say that we as a society are the ones making them promiscuous is wrong. They are the ones choosing to have multiple partners. No one is forcing them.
Catholig
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?
it's hard because we never talk what it's really about: children. i'm fine with gay people being together. oh, i think it's a sin, but i have no interest in the gov't prohibiting it. but i have a big problem with gays adopting kids, and a big problem with homosexual indoctrination of our kids in school. that's what we should be talking about. if gay marriage is legal, it will be impossible to stop gay adoption (i realize it happens now anyway) and homosexual indoctrination of our kids. in truth, very few gays want to be married, but they do want "gay marriage" to exist for the reasons i just stated.And do you suggest making it illegal and throwing them all in jail where they will be raped and beaten? Not too Christian. I say let them do what they want in their own bedroom.The goal is to legalize sin.
“Your honor. I’m a straight guy and I can’t choose between these two beautiful, wonderful women. Why can’t I marry both of them?”
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
My brothers and sisters in Christ, our neighbors are asking us to legalize gay sex.
God bless,
Ed
Goofyjim - I’m not sure if we ever could make it illegal, but I certainly don’t think that we should legalize homosexual “marriages” because it is in my book condoning the sin.And do you suggest making it illegal and throwing them all in jail where they will be raped and beaten? Not too Christian. I say let them do what they want in their own bedroom.
I regrett the fact that the gay agenda gets hijacked. Originally it was for the right to have partners legally without being imprisoned… and I agree with this. if a person is not religious it should not have religious moral restrictions placed on them…they have free will and free choice.it’s hard because we never talk what it’s really about: children. i’m fine with gay people being together. oh, i think it’s a sin, but i have no interest in the gov’t prohibiting it. but i have a big problem with gays adopting kids, and a big problem with homosexual indoctrination of our kids in school. that’s what we should be talking about. if gay marriage is legal, it will be impossible to stop gay adoption (i realize it happens now anyway) and homosexual indoctrination of our kids. in truth, very few gays want to be married, but they do want “gay marriage” to exist for the reasons i just stated.
Free will is an often misused word. It means that one has the capability to sin or not to sin - it doesn’t mean that one is “allowed” (i.e. given permission from god) to sin. And while they may be secular - a society has the right to defend its core values. I don’t see why we should normalize homosexuality when it can adversely affect our children.I regrett the fact that the gay agenda gets hijacked. Originally it was for the right to have partners legally without being imprisoned… and I agree with this. if a person is not religious it should not have religious moral restrictions placed on them…they have free will and free choice.
The point is that homosexuals, in order to feel that their sinful lifestyle is acceptable, have tried to indoctrinate our children. And if a homosexual told me what you just said about Christians having had a monopoly on morals etc. I would see him as an anarchist who wants to radically alter our society, which in fact is the goal of the homosexual agenda.However the point is with using the owrd ‘indoctrination’… is that many gay people would turn round and say:
we’re indoctrinating the young??? you’ve had a religious monopoly on morals for hundreds and hundreds of years… and God doesn’t even exist!!! (though I know some are religious too and still practice)… indoctrination is a matter of perspective and what you personally feel is right.
This isn’t to say that teaching children about the gay lifestyle is right at such a young age, but all teenagers and older children should be made aware by their parents as they wil come across it in their lives and should treat gay people respectfuly irregardless of their views…
I’ve already said that I view this as radical anarchism and I think that the simple fact that they cannot have children is enough to illustrate that any sexual relations between homosexuals is selfish and hedonistic.the gay person would argue:it’s the truth, why not teach them early? the debate would fall apart then because it’s all a matter of our own view on who has indoctrinated who.