Why so many "gay marriage" posts?

[ega]

YinYangMom:

Ega,

I’m feeling left out…
when will you respond to my responses to your earlier arguments?

YYM

Just starting.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

ega:

Technically this is not true. he talks of men who have sex with each other despite actually having a natural lust for women. That is, they were heterosexual.

Such descriptions do not apply to homosexual men, who have no lust for women, natural or otherwise, to turn away from.

To be absolutely strict in your reading and interpretation you must admit Paul referred to straight men having gay sex and thus being perverse.

For gay men, who only have natural lust for other men, they would be perverse to have sex with women. They would clearly be breaking Gods Plan For Them in doing so. To be true to Pauls teaching they have to have gay sex.

A close and strict reading of what paul wrote supports gay people joining with gay people.

i bet you didnt know that.

That is the biggest spin on scripture I have ever seen!

 

[fix]

ega:

Technically this is not true. he talks of men who have sex with each other despite actually having a natural lust for women. That is, they were heterosexual.

Such descriptions do not apply to homosexual men, who have no lust for women, natural or otherwise, to turn away from.

To be absolutely strict in your reading and interpretation you must admit Paul referred to straight men having gay sex and thus being perverse.

For gay men, who only have natural lust for other men, they would be perverse to have sex with women. They would clearly be breaking Gods Plan For Them in doing so. To be true to Pauls teaching they have to have gay sex.

A close and strict reading of what paul wrote supports gay people joining with gay people.

i bet you didnt know that.

You, once again, start from a faulty premise. By whose authority do you accept that the bible is accurate in what it reports? By whose authority do you claim to interpret Scripture and why is your one interpretation accurate?

 

[Libero]

I am a brand new member so i please peresrvere,

I think that there are a number of different views to be taken on this matter, my personal view is one that would state that homosexuality is a natural feeling for some, done in no way to spite the church or God, thus it has no effect on your understanding of religion and of God’s message. So therfore it is not something that should cause a problem to a pries. However i do understand why people say homosexuality is wrong, due to the fact it goes against the creation of life - Having said this i think that i would hold the status of many more liberal clergy members in saying that homosexuality is objectively wrong, however there are no grounds for harsh treatmet against people based on sexual orientation. I also find the evidence and scriptures condemming homoseuxality to be very poor evidence in a modern day argument. Personally i think that there should be a more progressive attitude towards homosexuality as i think some clergy members views are just purely discriminative. I hope God allows Benedict XVI to hold a less stern view towards homosexuality.

God Bless

 

[ega]

YinYangMom:

He made us Male and Female, Eve to complete Adam.
For every male there is a female to complement him.
Males are created to seek his female counterpart.
Females are created to seek her male counterpart.
Unless they are created only to serve the Lord in celibacy.

In the beginning…

Well, i was a ball of chemicals in dynamic equilibrium, showers of calcium ions flowed across lipid membranes like shooting stars, ATP became ADP and the free electrons shot along the arms of protiens that trembled with potential and then twisted, making one cell two, and then two cells four, and so on.

Beginnings tell us only about beginnings.

God made Adam and Eve, and Adam and Steve. It seems to me his love is vast, and same-sex love is just another form and expression of that love.

All to love in all its forms and all its glory.

But sexual love is only for male and female as a means to participate in the Holy Trinity (as in 3 persons - male, female, G-d) so as to participate in G-d’s creativity by producing new life.

The vatican has said it is OK for sterile mixed sex couple to have sex despite no possibility of reproduction, so it seems to me your claim is false.

To be forever with your soul mate and best friend.

That’s no where in scripture. Jesus didn’t speak of this.
Our soul mate is G-d Himself. Everything we do on this earth is to get our way back to Him.

Jesus said love one another.

To hold the covenant that we shall love one another as he loves us.

Yes, to love each other enough to die for one another in order to save each human’s soul.

beautiful isnt it?

A male seeking sexual activity with another male is not preserving that person’s soul - instead he is condemning it along with his own. How can that ever be considered on the same level as Christ’s love for us?

The key quality is love, all else comes from that. You deny love, you deny God. You deny the greatest of gifts. The hate so many so-called christians espouse in direct contradiction of the message of the new testament.

 

[ega]

Some history of the church and sexuality and reproduction.

Before the framing of the natural Law arguments (which appeared around the 600ad but were properly codified in the 1100s) it was simply assumed we were all sinners, and no differentiation was made between any one sinner and any other.

Our job was simple, to contemplate JCs death, and to seek redemption through his suffering. Everything else was considered secondary. Having children was not part of gods plan, and at that stage marriage was not celebrated as a sacrement, but as a blessing. The second coming was considered to be imminent and all activity was bent to that end.

But the second coming didnt happen, so the church turned its attention to the possibility that god had another plan. Thus observations were made and the church came to the conclusion that gods plan could be divined through observation. After fierce internal battles it was concluded that God wanted people to have babies. But this left the theological problem that sex was considered to be sinful.

The circle was squared by changing the churches teachings. The church started teaching that sex was no longer a sin if it occurred in marriage, and to reflect this new teaching the church made marriage one of the Sacrements. Actually, this was very cheeky, because the church decreed marriage had always been a sacrement…they simply had forgotten to mention it.

This introduced an anomoly.

Whereas before we were all sinners and it didnt matter how, the church introduced a doctrine that implied sex within marriage and kids was gods plan.

Suddenly children, pure evidence of peoples sin (that is, they were thinking of sex, not Jesus sffering on the cross) became pure evidence they were saved.

And behind that was the obvious counterpoint that people who had sex (and so were not contemplating redemption) but could not have children were actually violating gods plan and were the very worst sorts of sinners.

Those of you who like to think about marriage, sex and children as evidence you are fulfilling gods plan, or think the sterility of same-sex relationships shows its sinful nature need to remember this. You are considered to be fulfilling gods plan because there was no second coming.

 

[ega]

fix:

You, once again, start from a faulty premise. By whose authority do you accept that the bible is accurate in what it reports? By whose authority do you claim to interpret Scripture and why is your one interpretation accurate?

You are aware that the holy spirit manifests in each and every one of us, arent you?

That is the authority.

But i do agree with parts of what you say.

 

[fix]

ega:

Some history of the church and sexuality and reproduction.

Before the framing of the natural Law arguments (which appeared around the 600ad but were properly codified in the 1100s) it was simply assumed we were all sinners, and no differentiation was made between any one sinner and any other.

Our job was simple, to contemplate JCs death, and to seek redemption through his suffering. Everything else was considered secondary. Having children was not part of gods plan, and at that stage marriage was not celebrated as a sacrement, but as a blessing. The second coming was considered to be imminent and all activity was bent to that end.

But the second coming didnt happen, so the church turned its attention to the possibility that god had another plan. Thus observations were made and the church came to the conclusion that gods plan could be divined through observation. After fierce internal battles it was concluded that God wanted people to have babies. But this left the theological problem that sex was considered to be sinful.

The circle was squared by changing the churches teachings. The church started teaching that sex was no longer a sin if it occurred in marriage, and to reflect this new teaching the church made marriage one of the Sacrements. Actually, this was very cheeky, because the church decreed marriage had always been a sacrement…they simply had forgotten to mention it.

This introduced an anomoly.

Whereas before we were all sinners and it didnt matter how, the church introduced a doctrine that implied sex within marriage and kids was gods plan.

Suddenly children, pure evidence of peoples sin (that is, they were thinking of sex, not Jesus sffering on the cross) became pure evidence they were saved.

And behind that was the obvious counterpoint that people who had sex (and so were not contemplating redemption) but could not have children were actually violating gods plan and were the very worst sorts of sinners.

Those of you who like to think about marriage, sex and children as evidence you are fulfilling gods plan, or think the sterility of same-sex relationships shows its sinful nature need to remember this. You are considered to be fulfilling gods plan because there was no second coming.

Like the old Soviets, you like to revise history for your own purposes.

 

[YinYangMom]

ega:

In the beginning…

Well, i was a ball of chemicals in dynamic equilibrium, showers of calcium ions flowed across lipid membranes like shooting stars, ATP became ADP and the free electrons shot along the arms of protiens that trembled with potential and then twisted, making one cell two, and then two cells four, and so on.

No, you weren’t. You were imaged and fashioned in the image of G-d and He created you through the embrace of your mother and father (not your father and father or mother and mother).

Beginnings tell us only about beginnings.

God made Adam and Eve, and Adam and Steve. It seems to me his love is vast, and same-sex love is just another form and expression of that love.

Beginnings reveal the Truth of G-d’s intention for our existence. He created Adam and Eve from which ‘Steve’ would have been conceived. Steve would not have existed without Eve. And again, Steve was created to know G-d, to love Him and to serve Him…that would be either through finding his female counterpart and marrying her so that together they could embrace G-d, or to serve G-d celibately by united himself to Him while on earth.

The vatican has said it is OK for sterile mixed sex couple to have sex despite no possibility of reproduction, so it seems to me your claim is false.

First of all, if a person knows they are sterile before marriage, the Vatican says they cannot enter into the covenant of marriage.
Where a couple renders itself permanently sterile without knowing it was against Church teaching then the Vatican says they can participate in the Eucharist **only **after a sincere confession heard by a priest. Until that happens that couple is not Catholic in good standing. Once they have come back fully into the Church they are allowed to have marital relations because it fulfills the unitive purpose of the act - to bind them as one with G-d. If G-d wills it, a baby can still result from one of those unions (it has happened).

Jesus said love one another.

He didn’t say ‘Have sex with everyone.’ You are equating love with sex and that just is not the case.

To hold the covenant that we shall love one another as he loves us.

Yes, to love each other enough to die for one another in order to save each human’s soul.

beautiful isnt it?

The key quality is love, all else comes from that. You deny love, you deny God. You deny the greatest of gifts. The hate so many so-called christians espouse in direct contradiction of the message of the new testament.

Love does not equal sex

.
And you failed to address the issue of the man’s soul as well as that of his partner’s. How can you consider the damning of one’s soul an expression of love on any scale?

 

[fix]

ega:

You are aware that the holy spirit manifests in each and every one of us, arent you?

That is the authority.

But i do agree with parts of what you say.

You are aware that you are not an infallible interpreter of faith and morals? In the end, your way is pure moral relativism. It is as old as the world and as wrong as saying 2+2=5

 

[ega]

fix:

Humans are not beasts.

You cant have it both ways. if you argue that same-sex activity in ‘unnatural’, you must accept evidence from the natural world that shows it is.

You accept this. Good.

In any population of people there is a small but always present minority of people who prefer their own sex. It is about 2% of that population (essentially 1 in 50) of being public. If being gay is a choice you do not expect such universal consistencey.

So it clearly is natural for people.

 

[ega]

fix:

You are aware that you are not an infallible interpreter of faith and morals? In the end, your way is pure moral relativism. It is as old as the world and as wrong as saying 2+2=5

It is possible, but then nor is anyone infalliblme.

The vatican says the pope is infallible…but do you know where that doctrine comes from?

 

[YinYangMom]

ega:

Some history of the church and sexuality and reproduction.

Before the framing of the natural Law arguments (which appeared around the 600ad but were properly codified in the 1100s) it was simply assumed we were all sinners, and no differentiation was made between any one sinner and any other.

Our job was simple, to contemplate JCs death, and to seek redemption through his suffering. Everything else was considered secondary. Having children was not part of gods plan, and at that stage marriage was not celebrated as a sacrement, but as a blessing. The second coming was considered to be imminent and all activity was bent to that end.

But the second coming didnt happen, so the church turned its attention to the possibility that god had another plan. Thus observations were made and the church came to the conclusion that gods plan could be divined through observation. After fierce internal battles it was concluded that God wanted people to have babies. But this left the theological problem that sex was considered to be sinful.

The circle was squared by changing the churches teachings. The church started teaching that sex was no longer a sin if it occurred in marriage, and to reflect this new teaching the church made marriage one of the Sacrements. Actually, this was very cheeky, because the church decreed marriage had always been a sacrement…they simply had forgotten to mention it.

This introduced an anomoly.

Whereas before we were all sinners and it didnt matter how, the church introduced a doctrine that implied sex within marriage and kids was gods plan.

Suddenly children, pure evidence of peoples sin (that is, they were thinking of sex, not Jesus sffering on the cross) became pure evidence they were saved.

And behind that was the obvious counterpoint that people who had sex (and so were not contemplating redemption) but could not have children were actually violating gods plan and were the very worst sorts of sinners.

Those of you who like to think about marriage, sex and children as evidence you are fulfilling gods plan, or think the sterility of same-sex relationships shows its sinful nature need to remember this. You are considered to be fulfilling gods plan because there was no second coming.

The church didn’t imply anything. The church reflected on the Truth having previously been revealed. The source of the revelation is the Holy Spirit. It is up to the Church to protect the Truth and to help mankind understand and obey G-d’s wishes.

As you pointed out…once it became evident the second coming wasn’t happening any time soon, they went back to look at the revelations again with a different viewpoint (with the grace of the Holy Spirit) and came out with a ‘better’ interpretation of the original message. That is the purpose of the Church. Jesus told Peter the Spirit would be with the Church always for exactly that purpose.

I’ve notice you never capitalize the g in God…
do you ascribe to any particular religion because the lack of capitalization suggests you aren’t even Christian…so why are you debating matters of Christian faith with us, and why would you even care whether or not your beliefs are in line with Christianity?

 

[ega]

fix:

Like the old Soviets, you like to revise history for your own purposes.

Your energies would be better spent learning your history. Speak from knowledge, not fear, my friend.

That is all for tonight.

Peace be with you.

 

[YinYangMom]

ega:

You are aware that the holy spirit manifests in each and every one of us, arent you?

That is the authority.

But i do agree with parts of what you say.

While the Holy Spirit manifests itself in each baptized person (I’m not sure about non-baptized), the authority of the Holy Spirit to lead and to guide was specifically handed to Peter and the Apostles on Pentecost. That authority continues to reside with Papa Benny. My personal interpretations do not supercede those of the Vatican.

 

[YinYangMom]

ega:

You cant have it both ways. if you argue that same-sex activity in ‘unnatural’, you must accept evidence from the natural world that shows it is.

You accept this. Good.

In any population of people there is a small but always present minority of people who prefer their own sex. It is about 2% of that population (essentially 1 in 50) of being public. If being gay is a choice you do not expect such universal consistencey.

So it clearly is natural for people.

You again show your ignorance of Church teaching.

Just because one ‘prefers’ or is ‘physically attracted’ to someone of their same gender does not mean it was G-d designed for that person to act on that desire…just as it it not in G-d’s design for unmarried heterosexuals to act on their desires outside the Sacrament of marriage.

Yes, the Church acknowledges that being gay is not a choice. They do not accept the theory it is genetic (as there is lack of evidence).
They accept the theory it is more a matter of conditioning than anything else, conditioning imposed on the person when the person was too young and immature to resist or even know they were being misguided.
This is why the Church calls for compassion and acceptance of the gay ‘person’ and calls all people in that situation to take on their cross of same-sex attraction for the sake of all souls by living a celibate life on earth.

 

[YinYangMom]

ega:

It is possible, but then nor is anyone infalliblme.

The vatican says the pope is infallible…but do you know where that doctrine comes from?

sigh

The Pope is only infallible when speaking Ex-Cathedra.

Church interpretations and teachings are guided by the Holy Spirit and shared with Catholics with the authority specifically handed to her by Christ. The keys to the kingdom of heaven are in the Pope’s hands…not yours, not mine, not any other person.

 

[Brad]

ega:

Your energies would be better spent learning your history. Speak from knowledge, not fear, my friend.

That is all for tonight.

Peace be with you.

Whereas almost every single one of your posts here is in error (many of them contain serious error) and have been refuted throughout these forums previously, I don’t have the time to respond to each one. I would simply like to understand your purpose in expending so much energy here.

Are you interested in marriage becoming obsolete?

OR

Are you interested in legal homosexual “marriage”? If so, why do you want it?

 

[Lisa_N]

ega:

You cant have it both ways. if you argue that same-sex activity in ‘unnatural’, you must accept evidence from the natural world that shows it is.

You accept this. Good.

In any population of people there is a small but always present minority of people who prefer their own sex. It is about 2% of that population (essentially 1 in 50) of being public. If being gay is a choice you do not expect such universal consistencey.

So it clearly is natural for people.

So you would say that because there is a certain percentage of people who are serial killers this is ‘natural’ for them and we should all accept it?

Homosexual activity is unhealthy and unnatural. Just because you can jam Tab A into slot B doesn’t mean it was meant to go there. I can stick my finger in my eye but eyes weren’t meant to be gouged. I can stick my finger down my throat but in response I’ll vomit which is about the same reaction I have to your perverted logic. I hope you aren’t under the illusion you are changing any minds.

Lisa N

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ega:

The key quality is love, all else comes from that. You deny love, you deny God. You deny the greatest of gifts. The hate so many so-called christians espouse in direct contradiction of the message of the new testament.

Simplify please. Define Christian love using references to authority.