With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

[JimG]

Catholic Church will never change its own views on marriage

Certainly not. Because human nature does not change. And the moral law does not change.

 

[tskrobacz]

Have you read Church teaching?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

Yes, surely you know that the CCC does not call the person “intrinsically disordered”…

 

[Midwest88]

Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love.** I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?**

Equating interracial marriage to homosexual marriage is intellectually dishonest. Just because the world is “ahead” on supposed equality doesn’t mean it’s wrong and should “reexamine” its position.

Bold: this is the typical response from a Catholic that’s in favor for homosexuals marrying, They show sympathy to all the gay friends who are in long term relationships and think “Hey, they too deserve being married. This is discrimination! The Church is wrong.” Let me tell you that’s shallow thinking. Guess what. I too was in favor for homosexual marriage until I realized that it’s just another pet project for progressives, and how absurd two people of the same sex being joined as “one” when they can’t even procreate – two bodies becoming one.

So yea, no. I’m rather tired of these “well, I have many gay friends who are wonderful so why can’t they marry, too?” types of responses.

Wasn’t there an article from a gay Christian talking about the “facade” of happy homosexuals and how “they’re perfectly healthy” (when referencing a gay bookstore front)? I swear there was an article about it, and it was absolutely telling. Anyone have a link to it?

 

[aragonjohn1]

Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?

NO

Whether you know or not the church always has taught the dignity and the purpose of every human person no matter what the “social norm” is.

Shalom
God bless

 

[Midwest88]

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.

So you’re saying that homosexuals are the ideal human beings persecuted by patriarchy. I guess that makes bisexuals really special then and straight people the oppressors. Wow. My Gender Studies professors were right all along …

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.

Good for them. They deserve a treat of being “with it.”

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.

Are you serious? You’re basically subscribing to thinking of “God is all love therefore anything goes and there should be no labels or discrimination.” That right there rejects everything in the Bible, not only that but it turns the world inside out and upside down.

 

[Chrish1975]

So, OP, plan on ever coming back to this thread???

I just wanted to see what others thought of my position. I’m not an arguer.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I think there are not a few gay men who would take offense to your saying they are both masculine and feminine.

And they would be correct.

Having homosexual desires does not, at all, envelop the feminine in any gay male.

 

[Brendan]

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.

Correct, just as the courts are under no obliation to accept the defintions of mathematicians use in defining π or the square root of twenty. A judge could set them both to be legally equal to 4.

But that doesn’t make the legal defintion to be the correct one, now does it?

 

[mlz]

Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?

No, you seem to misunderstand the teaching of the Church.

mlz

 

[Giants]

Correct, just as the courts are under no obliation to accept the defintions of mathematicians use in defining π or the square root of twenty. A judge could set them both to be legally equal to 4.

But that doesn’t make the legal defintion to be the correct one, now does it?

This example is a non sequitur. I can prove what pi and the square root of 20 are equal to. And you could not undercut my proof without deconstructing what makes math math.

By contrast your, definition of marriage is based on a view of reality that may or may not be true, but in any case, cannot be proven. No unbiased judge would be under any obligation to take your definition of marriage seriously, given its basis.

edwest:

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.

And what does this have to do with marriage? You can be married without having sex, and you can have sex without being married. Your theology may insist otherwise, but no judge is under any obligation to take your theology seriously.

The biological reality is that people do all sorts of things to each other while naked in the pursuit of sexual gratification. No doubt you disapprove of all of these things, but this is likewise irrelevant. Your theologically-based disapproval is not of interest to our courts.

 

[Brendan]

This example is a non sequitur. I can prove what pi and the square root of 20 are equal to. And you could not undercut my proof without deconstructing what makes math math.

By contrast your, definition of marriage is based on a view of reality that may or may not be true, but in any case, cannot be proven. No unbiased judge would be under any obligation to take your definition of marriage seriously, given its basis…

You could only prove it using axia that the judge accepts.

If the judge refused to accept the axia, then he will, by definiton, not accept your proof.

But my point was that judges are really under no obligation to accept any reality they disagree with, moral , mathematical or otherwise.

Thus the decisions of the courts cannot be talken as proof of reality…

 

[CopticChristian]

Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?

Chrish,

The Bible-Tradition-Magesterium…

I have been Catholic all my life…I must have missed something…does the Supreme Court in any way have anything to do with the teachings of the Church, ie (name removed by moderator)ut?

Is bigotry clouding our view?

Define what it is you call bigotry and what view is being blinded.

 

[LilyM]

I just wanted to see what others thought of my position. I’m not an arguer.

Says much about how convinced you are of your beliefs

 

[Crescentinus]

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

Odd that the homosexualists may even be trying to redefine science. After all, pointing out facts to them can be construed as a hate crime seeing as how it does not serve their agenda.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Wasn’t there an article from a gay Christian talking about the “facade” of happy homosexuals and how “they’re perfectly healthy” (when referencing a gay bookstore front)? I swear there was an article about it, and it was absolutely telling. Anyone have a link to it?

Perhaps it was this one:
“The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement”
By Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review
February 2006
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650
“The books were a front for the porn.”
As you can see, it is somewhat dated, but it is still available.

 

[Midwest88]

^ Thank you.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Perhaps it was this one:
“The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement”
By Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review
February 2006
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650
“The books were a front for the porn.”
As you can see, it is somewhat dated, but it is still available.

I think it’s kind of situations like this when the claim of Catholics, or strong Christians in general, being bigoted (or, at least, the claim that they are attempting to dehumanize homosexuals) is justified. I find that this idea of all, or even most, homosexuals being deviant monsters that wish only for sex and feel only lust is absurd. It doesn’t really take a genius to notice this. It’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory - the claim that homosexual activists seek to do little more than turn the world into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Generally, the idea of an evil, anti-religion, anti-decency, anti-morality Homosexual Agenda is just an attempt to dehumanize them. After all, it’s hard to claim that Adam and Steve down the road are evil, vile, immoral perverts, but it’s very easy to say that about the Homosexual Agenda.

And, on topic, of course the teaching of the Catholic church won’t change. There’s not really any reason for it to do so.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think it’s kind of situations like this when the claim of Catholics, or strong Christians in general, being bigoted (or, at least, the claim that they are attempting to dehumanize homosexuals) is justified. I find that this idea of all, or even most, homosexuals being deviant monsters that wish only for sex and feel only lust is absurd. It doesn’t really take a genius to notice this. It’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory - the claim that homosexual activists seek to do little more than turn the world into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Generally, the idea of an evil, anti-religion, anti-decency, anti-morality Homosexual Agenda is just an attempt to dehumanize them. After all, it’s hard to claim that Adam and Steve down the road are evil, vile, immoral perverts, but it’s very easy to say that about the Homosexual Agenda.

And, on topic, of course the teaching of the Catholic church won’t change. There’s not really any reason for it to do so.

Regular,

Did you read the article?

I did?

It was written by a homosexual.

If you are not a homosexual then your disapproval is less of importance than the homosexual that wrote the piece.

 

[edwest2]

Chrish,

The Bible-Tradition-Magesterium…

I have been Catholic all my life…I must have missed something…does the Supreme Court in any way have anything to do with the teachings of the Church, ie (name removed by moderator)ut?

Is bigotry clouding our view?

Define what it is you call bigotry and what view is being blinded.

The Supreme Court consists of human beings. It has made errors in the past, like forced sterilization of certain human beings, and it will likely continue to make errors. Human beings are not computers and they can be Supreme Court justices that hold certain biases, convinced only in their own minds, that they are right, and will be eternally right.

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared Thursday that abortions would continue to be available to women regardless of the legal challenges now being waged by opponents of Roe v. Wade.

“Over a generation of young women have grown up, understanding they can control their own reproductive capacity, and in fact their life’s destiny,” Ginsburg said in rare public remarks. “We will never go back to the way it once was.”

This is an irrational statement. Aside from rape, each human being has always had the ability to decide when to have and not to have sex. Laws are unnecessary unless they concern rape.

So the Catholic Church will continue to teach the truth about the error of so-called gay marriage, and the deaths of millions of babies in the womb.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

Did you read the article?

I did?

It was written by a homosexual.

If you are not a homosexual then your disapproval is less of importance than the homosexual that wrote the piece.

An ex-gay. And in other works by him, he draws on research from the widely discredited Paul Cameron and makes use of slippery slope arguments. You’ll notice that the book addressed in the link features the same article. The article itself also draws on one experience of one homosexual, and is a massive over generalisation. It also seems strange that you should accept his story as being true, and believe that is how all (or most) homosexuals live, and yet ignore the stories or lives of homosexuals who live monogamously, or what most people would consider acceptably.

This article, and the man writing is, is nothing special. I’ve read the same kind of stuff before. The claims that he makes are no different to any other anti-gay activists are making, be them Paul Cameron, or Peter LaBarbera, or any of the others. It’s the same broad statements, the same discredited research, the same conspiracy theories.