S
With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
Agreed. When people say “discrimination”, 99.44% of the time they mean “racial discrimination”. There used to be an ad on TV for a certain product that claimed to be “for the discriminating” consumer. Such a line would not work today.
The English language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. – George Orwell, 1946 Essay, “Politics and the English Language”
C
Crescentinus
Guest
C
Crescentinus
Guest
Personally, I’m thinking of using the word “discrimination” with its proper definition just to spite political correctness.
M
Myqyl
Guest
LoL! Whatever… If you don’t want to believe the Catechism, I won’t convince you of anything… Peace
S
sedonaman
Guest
Yes, and I have my own definition of “political correctness” too: “the rejection of truth that conflicts with ideology.” Theodore Dalrymple once said that political correctness is communism writ small.Personally, I’m thinking of using the word “discrimination” with its proper definition just to spite political correctness.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
Yes, and I have my own definition of “political correctness” too: “the rejection of truth that conflicts with ideology.” Theodore Dalrymple once said that political correctness is communism writ small.
T
tskrobacz
Guest
The marginalized, those of other races, religions, ideologies, and gender usually hold a gift for us. In the homosexual person we have the image of the masculine and the feminine put together in one person. That’s why we are terribly afraid of gays and lesbians. They are the image of what we all need to integrate, the contrasexual. We’ve all got to put the masculine and feminine together within ourselves. We are so terrified by that wholeness, that those that represent it are hated in most cultures based on domination and patriarchy.
Interestingly, more holistic cultures such as some Native Americans and Asiatics have no taboo against the homosexual. These cultures recognize more easily the mystery and paradox of all things human.
The True Self, who we objectively are in God, is prior and superior to any issues of gender, culture, or sexuality, which are all “accidental” to one’s foundational core as a child of God. This is why it is pure heresy to call a transgendered, gay or lesbian person “Intrinsically disordered.” The intrinsic foundation of the human person is given by God.
Interestingly, more holistic cultures such as some Native Americans and Asiatics have no taboo against the homosexual. These cultures recognize more easily the mystery and paradox of all things human.
The True Self, who we objectively are in God, is prior and superior to any issues of gender, culture, or sexuality, which are all “accidental” to one’s foundational core as a child of God. This is why it is pure heresy to call a transgendered, gay or lesbian person “Intrinsically disordered.” The intrinsic foundation of the human person is given by God.
F
fix
Guest
F
fix
Guest
Such terrible confusion. True integration involves submission to Christ.
E
edwest2
Guest
Have you read Church teaching?
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Peace,
Ed
J
JimG
Guest
Yes. My point is that homosexual couples are incapable of marital relations, not that they can’t have children. Marital intercourse–conjugal relations–is intrinsically impossible to a homosexual couple. Opposite sex couples are capable of marital relations, whether they are fertile or not. (That is why, for example impotence is a canonical impediment to marriage while infertility is not.) Not every act of marital intercourse results or can result in conception. But marital intercourse is the starting point. If that is inherently impossible, there is no marriage.
I agree that courts sometimes ignore biological and physical reality in order to arrive at preferred social goals. That seems irrational to me.
G
Giants
Guest
You’re confusing “biological and physical reality” with biological and physical reality as it is understood by your Church. The courts are under no burden to accept your pre-requisites for what make a marriage a marriage.
J
JimG
Guest
Biological and physical realities are not determined by the Church. As the previous poster noted, the Roe court simply decided not to decide when life begins even though the biological facts were readily available. (Even their method of presenting the question was faulty. “When life begins” is a phrase without a reference point. What they needed to ask was when does a new and distinct individual of the human species begin. That’s biology and the answer was easily available.)
As for marriage, the biology is also pretty clear. The human body is designed for male-female sexual intercourse. Since the beginning of history, societies and governments have recognized that fact, and thought it in the government interest to bestow government recognition of marriage, because, although not all couples would be fertile, many if not most would produce families. And without a future generation, no society can long survive. The biology is basic, and the sociology flows from it. Sterile couples can at least engage in sexual relations.
Sarah and Abraham thought themselves to be done with childbearing, infertile due to age, but God decided otherwise. That’s an exception to the rule. The point is, the possibility only existed because they were capable of engaging in heterosexual intercourse. That’s the basis of marriage.
E
edwest2
Guest
The courts are under an obligation to understand biological reality.
Men and women have sex organs designed for each other. That is the only way we are going to get the next generation of human beings.
The anus is not a sex organ.
Ask any doctor.
Peace,
Ed
J
JimG
Guest
Oh the Church will remain. It may be smaller. It may be underground, as in China; it may meet in homes, but it will exist. It may exist in the midst of a new dark age, brought on by the collapse of the family, which is the building block of civilization.
Note, I don’t say that gay marriage will result in the collapse of civilization. It is rather the atomization of family that will do it, and gay marriage is only the latest in the forces splitting apart family structure.
For those who are interested, two book recommendatons:
“Adam and Eve After the Pill,” by Mary Eberstadt.
“Family and Civilization” by Carle Zimmerman
L
livingwordunity
Guest
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Do you also want the bishops to stop speaking out for the rights of immigrants? That’s politics after all. But since black Protestant congregations regularly invite Democrat candidates to preach their politics from the pulpit, and since Planned Parenthood and Unions spend tax payer money endorsing Democrat politics the government shouldn’t have a different set of rules for Republicans and Catholic bishops.
S
sedonaman
Guest
:banghead: How do you conclude that I don’t believe in the Catechism? Just because I can see a difference between “unjust” and “any” ? There is such a thing as just discrimination, which might come as a shock to a lot of people. The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars. Citizens have the right to vote, aliens do not. But according to your understanding of the Catechism, it would be wrong to “discriminate” against gays no matter what.
After reading many Church documents, I have noticed that you [the rhetorical “you”] have to read every word very carefully to understand exactly what is being said before jumping to conclusions.
The English language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. – George Orwell, 1946 Essay, “Politics and the English Language”
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Catholic Church will never change its own views on marriage
- Status