Why should marriage be preserved for a man and a woman?

[PRmerger]

If we could have a sinless Mary, we could have had a sinless Joseph also, and their child would have been sinless like Adam. This could have happened just after the Fall of Adam and Eve, and all the Old Testament dramas, and God sending His only Son to die on the Cross etc. could have been avoided.

True. Could have. But it didn’t happen.

If you can explain to me why God didn’t think of this possibility in plain English without bombastic Latin hard to pronounce words and simple logic, and without telling us why only holy Catholics with Phds from Rome will understand this mystery, we will continue on this thread.

 

[PRmerger]

If you bothered reading through the threads you would see that there is PLENTY of disagreement here. Still, this is not the place to spew your evil hatred of Catholics…

Yes. There are lots of charming, erudite, articulate, prolific non-Catholic posters here who have been here a long time and have never been suspended or banned.

Would that the newbies learned from these veteran Protestant posters and learned how to dialogue.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have already shown earlier that this is not a reasonable excuse.

After stabbing somebody, can I justify my act saying " I did not stab, it was my hand"

Or can I say, " I did not lie, it was my tongue that lied"

Tony,

You appear to have concerns…I have concerns…

***Today, it is safer ( physically and financially,) for an American male to marry another male than to marry an American female. Also he will have more pace of Mind and will have to listen to less complaints and nagging.

Homosexuals don’t procreate, but they can bring up the children straight couples abort, or give up for adoption or put away in streets or garbage cans

It sure would be better than bringing up the child in an institution, or getting it aborted before birth***

Your initial postings favored homosexuality, homosexuals adopting and same sex marriage. It would appear that the issue of homosexuality is near and dear to you. I also noticed that your ability to post, by using the quote function, worked well up until the following posts…

Post 86

and then 90

and then you have been negative, chastising, spewing negative thoughts about the Church and not making lots of sense.

Are you Ok?

What is it you want from this forum?

 

[PRmerger]

I had said that Jesus interpreted the Old Testament different from how the Jewish priests interpreted it.

Actually, you did not say that. Here’s your words, verbatim (bold mine):

We have to only follow Bible as interpreted very lucidly by Jesus.

You very clearly state that Jesus interpreted the Bible, not the OT.

My Bible, as well as yours, includes the NT.

Do you wish to deny here that these are your words?

Or are you willing to retract the above statement, admitting its error?

 

[tonyrey]

** inocente**

In this case the walls are invented to reach a preconceived conclusion. It still implies that one is not be proud to be different and wishes to disguise one’s identity by imitating a heterosexual custom. There is no valid reason for pretending all sexual relationships are identical and are the natural basis of family life…

As you’re the one who invented the wall between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it’s good of you to admit you invented it to reach a preconceived conclusion…

You are the one who referred to walls - which obviously exist in your imagination. How can you break down something that doesn’t exist? Don’t you believe the preservation of marriage for a man and a woman is an obstacle that has to be destroyed?

Incidentally the first use of the word “heterosexual” wasn’t until 1892, so when between then and now did this heterosexual country club come into being?

There is no evidence that gay marriage existed before 1892. Perhaps it was clandestine…

 

[CopticChristian]

** inocente**You are the one who referred to walls - which obviously exist in your imagination. How can you break down something that doesn’t exist? Don’t you believe the preservation of marriage for a man and a woman is an obstacle that has to be destroyed?
There is no evidence that gay marriage existed before 1892. Perhaps it was clandestine…

There is no evidence that gay marriage existed before 1892. Perhaps it was clandestine…

Let us accept that these marriages were clandestine…do you believe that they were true marriages?

 

[tonyrey]

Let us accept that these marriages were clandestine…do you believe that they were true marriages?

You wouldn’t have asked that question if you had looked at the thread "Secular argument against gay marriage".

 

[mek42]

I posted a question in post 138. Did I miss a reply in the five pages of subsequent posts that seem to be related to one individual’s mostly off topic posts or was my own post not on topic enough?

Thanks!

 

[CopticChristian]

You wouldn’t have asked that question if you had looked at the thread "Secular argument against gay marriage".

I am interested in your point of view…the thread is the thread and you are you…

Do you believe that the clandestine same sex marriages were really marriages?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by forum moderator.