R
Rau
Guest
Taught in the classroom, or taught by the TV?
Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Adultery is not a crime in Australia since 1994, I understand. It is still a criminal offense (misdemeanor generally) in many states (18 or more) in the USA. Age of consent (fornication or marriage) is between 16 and 18. In the USA 33 states still allow for fault divorce. (There are 50 states.)
C
CatholicSheila
Guest
If adultery is supposedly illegal then it’s an incomplete law. Remarriage after divorce is adultery, unless the marriage is found to be invalid. Remarriage after divorce is legal in all states correct?
I’m curious, as far as the adultery laws are concerned, has anyone been charged and convicted of adultery recently?
Not sure what your point is by the age of consent laws or at fault divorce. The age of consent laws have nothing to do with whether or not fornication is acceptable. At-fault divorce laws don’t impact whether a marriage was valid.
C
CatholicSheila
Guest
If school children were taught that divorce and remarriage is a sin in schools, especially public schools, there would be an absolute uproar. Certainly in my country and I daresay in yours as well.
Instead it is taught that it is the way of the world and families came in all shapes and sizes (referring to remarriage here) and yes, that it is acceptable and okay.
It is just such a part of life now that we don’t even notice it anymore.
B
bibcat
Guest
Slavery was so ingrained into the economies of ancient societies that any admonition to ban it would have been ignored or even scoffed at, even if such admonition came from On High. It would have been equivalent–in today’s terms–to a divine admonition to abandon automobiles and computers. So God left it alone, pretty much, just commanding “if you’re going to own slaves, treat them well.”
R
Rau
Guest
You said: “6 year olds are taught that there is nothing wrong with mum and dad not been married, or mum and dad been divorced, or mum and dad marrying”
I asked if in your experience this is taught in Schools (as opposed to on TV). To not teach this does not imply the reverse is taught.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
About a third of the children (under the age of 18) live in single parent homes. (source). Single parent families are represented in various media targeted at children and has even been acknowledge in children shows such as Sesame Street (ref).Discussion of sex in the school environment has been a touchy issue, but not uniformly so. In some schools it’s not uncommon to hear of birth control, barrier methods for lowering pregnancy, and so on and in others the entirety of the sex education is simply “Don’t do it.” The USA isn’t quite culturally monolithic on these issues, so you can find groups of several different dispositions.
J
JimG
Guest
It’s too bad that no one teaches the children that marriage is intended to be for life, faithful, permanent, and life-giving. They sense this intuitively but then are told, sorry kids, these are the parents you start with but they might not be the ones you end with, whether you like it or not.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Catholic response is to speak the truth. Pope Benedict identified indifference as one issue facing the Church. Making certain that Catholics, at least, understand the true meaning of marriage is important.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
I would not say no one. The biggest wrong message is that sex is the most important thing, not commitment. We can stay committed to our jobs for decades but, for any society, marriage needs to be a stable commitment. Not ‘when the going gets rough, we’ll just trade in for a new person.’ Getting to know the other person as a complete person before the ceremony is what is needed, not sex education. And just because something is legal does not always mean it’s right.
Best,
Ed
M
Midwest88
Guest
Yet people fly the rainbow flag when two people of the same sex get “married”? The secular world is asking for its cake and requesting to eat it too.
And 6 yr olds are taught that fornicating and LGBT are normal? What country do you live in?
E
edwest2
Guest
That is the goal: start disorienting youngsters and continue the process for each year until adulthood. This sort of confusion needs to be avoided.
Ed
L
Lucretius
Guest
I should clarify a bit: I don’t think most true marriage supporters can make a rational arguement either. Most people actually can’t, as logic isn’t taught in public schools. This isn’t new, as most people throughout history were uneducated and ignorant about many things (we are saved by faith, not by knowledge; the educated Christian needs to be reminded about this often
).So, most people I agree with can’t rationally justify their position, however, many on the true marriage side of the debate will admit that their position is grounded on the purely religious anyway. Same-sex “marriage” advocates, however, love to claim that their position is the most (and only) rational position, yet they have nothing to show for it. It’s this hypocrisy that also puts me at odds with the so called “enlightened” advocates.
I especially cringe when I hear same-sex “marriage” advocates compare themselves to those in the Civil Rights movement. They are less about searching for the truth, and more about asserting their will, which just happens to be enslaved to the passions (and the current fads of the times), like a brute beast. Of course, many of the advocates believe that truth is relative anyway, which can be changed through social advocacy, or at least that is the logical conclusion of their position
Christi pax,
Lucretius
M
Midwest88
Guest
What’s strange to me is that there is no logic behind this way of thinking besides “meh” and “as long as no one physically harmed.” If social taboos are promoted and are no longer considered taboos (divorce, open relationships, fornication, adultery) then I fail to see the point of holding civil marriage as anything but some archaic ritual to celebrate a feeling called “love.” It’s a joke. What’s the difference of cohabitating for X years and going to a civil court to get it stamped once we exclude spousal benefits? Since kids are divorced from sex and marriage is some feel-good ceremony of “celebration of love” civil marriage has become a joke. I hate to say it but when I viewed some of my friend’s wedding photos, civil I believe, they were holding up the marriage certificate like some sort of award. I thought to myself, “So who came in first? Is this a participation award?” The pictures of them looking dreamily at each other as they leaned on a red barn was nicely done, though - you know, that popular boho-chic vibe going on.
M
Midwest88
Guest
True, many are unable to. I usually boil it down to natural law, reproductive ethics and then tying it into the most stable family formation being that of a mother and father - at least that’s what I use in defense. I then say that changing “one man one woman” to “two people regardless of sex” reforms how parenting is seen. I try to make marriage more than “two people’s dignity & love being affirmed” and less about “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” though I admit that little blurb has more substance to it once we delve into natural law and all that. Then there’s the history of marriage being known, for the most part, as something between one man and one woman, but I don’t dive deeply into it because I’m not that well verse.I should clarify a bit: I don’t think most true marriage supporters can make a rational arguement either. Most people actually can’t, as logic isn’t taught in public schools. This isn’t new, as most people throughout history were uneducated and ignorant about many things (we are saved by faith, not by knowledge; the educated Christian needs to be reminded about this often
Lucretius
E
esmero
Guest
Because the “gay issues” come from the heart of satanic machinations to destabilize the Church.
It didn’t take even a day after same-sex marriage was legalized for people to start saying that Churches that refuse to marry homosexuals should not enjoy tax-exemption. This is comes at the peak of the wave of discussion of whether religious condemnation of various topics-- of which “gay issues” are at the forefront-- constitutes “hate speech” and thus should be outlawed.
Make no mistake: all this consolidates into the thought that the Church itself should not be allowed to exist, lest it conforms to the progressive dogma. Which is precisely what satan has wanted all along.
However, such “obsession”, or despair, also betrays people’s defective faith. Christ didn’t say that His people *could *be persecuted if things went wrong; he GUARANTEED that his people **will **be persecuted for not being a part of the world.
But just as Christ himself needed to suffer in the hands of the world so the will of God would triumph in the end, so will the Church and her members endure suffering so God will triumph.
When we feel the walls closing in, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that God simply cannot lose. Period. We can take comfort in the fact that, even if we personally should fall in combat, our reward is in God’s grace, not in this Earth.
It didn’t take even a day after same-sex marriage was legalized for people to start saying that Churches that refuse to marry homosexuals should not enjoy tax-exemption. This is comes at the peak of the wave of discussion of whether religious condemnation of various topics-- of which “gay issues” are at the forefront-- constitutes “hate speech” and thus should be outlawed.
Make no mistake: all this consolidates into the thought that the Church itself should not be allowed to exist, lest it conforms to the progressive dogma. Which is precisely what satan has wanted all along.
However, such “obsession”, or despair, also betrays people’s defective faith. Christ didn’t say that His people *could *be persecuted if things went wrong; he GUARANTEED that his people **will **be persecuted for not being a part of the world.
But just as Christ himself needed to suffer in the hands of the world so the will of God would triumph in the end, so will the Church and her members endure suffering so God will triumph.
When we feel the walls closing in, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that God simply cannot lose. Period. We can take comfort in the fact that, even if we personally should fall in combat, our reward is in God’s grace, not in this Earth.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
What do you mean that same-sex marriage advocates having nothing to show for their position? How about same-sex marriage now being legal in all 50 states and being accepted by more than half the population in the US? Their arguments must have been persuasive enough to convince a lot of people including five justices on the US Supreme Court and the judges on many Courts of Appeal, the voters in a number of states, three quarters of Catholic adults under 30 (according to a Pew Research Center survey from last year), a majority of the people of Ireland, etc.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/
E
edwest2
Guest
The rational argument for true marriage is why most reading this are here. A man and a woman have their kids and have a responsibility to raise their kids to be functional members of society and so on, not “first, the sex needs to be good” or “who knows who your dad is, it doesn’t matter.” Really? Stable families.I should clarify a bit: I don’t think most true marriage supporters can make a rational arguement either. Most people actually can’t, as logic isn’t taught in public schools. This isn’t new, as most people throughout history were uneducated and ignorant about many things (we are saved by faith, not by knowledge; the educated Christian needs to be reminded about this often
So, most people I agree with can’t rationally justify their position, however, many on the true marriage side of the debate will admit that their position is grounded on the purely religious anyway. Same-sex “marriage” advocates, however, love to claim that their position is the most (and only) rational position, yet they have nothing to show for it. It’s this hypocrisy that also puts me at odds with the so called “enlightened” advocates.
I especially cringe when I hear same-sex “marriage” advocates compare themselves to those in the Civil Rights movement. They are less about searching for the truth, and more about asserting their will, which just happens to be enslaved to the passions (and the current fads of the times), like a brute beast. Of course, many of the advocates believe that truth is relative anyway, which can be changed through social advocacy, or at least that is the logical conclusion of their position
Christi pax,
Lucretius
The Civil Rights movement? Poor argument.
wnd.com/2014/09/black-pastors-called-silver-bullet-against-gay-marriage/
There are lines we cannot cross without facing bad consequences.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
It doesn’t work. The Church considers “gay marriage” impossible. Making something legal does not mean it’s always right. The will of the people was thwarted, as same-sex marriage was voted down twice in California. A Court, not the people, made a tragic error, again. Catholics need to spread the truth about marriage.What do you mean that same-sex marriage advocates having nothing to show for their position? How about same-sex marriage now being legal in all 50 states and being accepted by more than half the population in the US? Their arguments must have been persuasive enough to convince a lot of people including five justices on the US Supreme Court and the judges on many Courts of Appeal, the voters in a number of states, three quarters of Catholic adults under 30 (according to a Pew Research Center survey from last year), etc.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/
Accepted? Wrong word. I don’t accept “gay marriage.” Homosexual - LGBT - persons I’ve known, no problem, but gay marriage, no.
Ed
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Proposition 8 which outlawed same-sex marriage in California passed by only 52% to 48% in 2008. That was more than six years ago and a lot has changed since then. If the same issue were voted on again, I’m absolutely certain that same-sex marriage would now be approved by a significant margin in California.
- Status