With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

[Randy_Carson]

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?

**Are You a Hater or a Bigot? Or Are You Just Intolerant? **

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-you-a-hater-or-a-bigot-or-are-you-just-intolerant#ixzz2C7abpGv0

 

[Crescentinus]

**Are You a Hater or a Bigot? Or Are You Just Intolerant? **

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-you-a-hater-or-a-bigot-or-are-you-just-intolerant#ixzz2C7abpGv0

Whenever I’m attacked by homosexualists with their cheap rhetoric, I am happy.

 

[sedonaman]

… And why can’t a gay couple adopt a child, raise it to adulthood, the kid’s straight, gets married and has kids of their own, and the whole passing down cherished traditions and culture happens anyway? …

This is beside the point. Because adoption presupposes the prior existence of the child, homosexuals add no value when it comes to propagating the species.

But to address your question, there are many straight couples eager and able to adopt, and where is the proof that gay adoption is just as good for the child as heterosexual adoption? Here again, we have the necessity for the use of the force of law to compel societal acceptance of an idea that it finds repugnant. Adoption exists to provide children with the parents they need, not to provide adults with the children they want. And in the case of homosexual adults, I suspect it has more to do with forcing social acceptance of homosexuality than wanting to provide needed parents to a child.

 

[sedonaman]

**Are You a Hater or a Bigot? Or Are You Just Intolerant? **

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-you-a-hater-or-a-bigot-or-are-you-just-intolerant#ixzz2C7abpGv0

tomwoods.com/blog/interview-with-a-zombie

 

[sedonaman]

… Prior to this, job one was overturning sodomy laws.
…

Did you miss the earlier assertion that there is no agenda and no slippery slope?

 

[Robertanthony]

This is beside the point. Because adoption presupposes the prior existence of the child, homosexuals add no value when it comes to propagating the species.

But to address your question, there are many straight couples eager and able to adopt, and where is the proof that gay adoption is just as good for the child as heterosexual adoption? Here again, we have the necessity for the use of the force of law to compel societal acceptance of an idea that it finds repugnant. Adoption exists to provide children with the parents they need, not to provide adults with the children they want. And in the case of homosexual adults, I suspect it has more to do with forcing social acceptance of homosexuality than wanting to provide needed parents to a child.

Nicely put.

Someone mentionned the “cheap rhetoric”, its appeal to emotion and to pity is hard to counter with rational arguments. For some an ad with two good-looking men and a smiling child is all it takes to convince them that homosexuals can be the best parents. You know in all US TV sitcoms or talkshows filmed before a live audience, every time there is something emotional or slightly poignant that happens, some in the audience go, “ah”(spelling?). I call it the “ah” factor.

 

[guanophore]

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?

The Church is not at liberty to change the once for all divine deposit of faith. We are not allowed to redefine the TEachings of Jesus to suit the ages of the world. If it is God’s will that we are persecuted by out government because we cling to the One Faith entrusted to the Church, then this is His will for us. Many of us already believe that we are suffering because of the slaughter of the innocents in our country. Now we will also be made to suffer because we will not support taking the live of the innocent by our own contribution.

The Church does not discriminate against anyone. Her arms are open to all. Persons with same sex attraction are called to chastity just like everyone else.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Interesting and common misconception. My belief is grounded in philosophical realism first and foremost just as yours appears to be grounded in philosophical relativism. It is only after the reality of the situation kicks in that faith is build on this foundation.

A short summary of my position

1. Things exist(I’m sure we can agree on this point)
2. The intellect grasps the truth of said things in themselves(to return to my previous example a dog is still a dog even if I call it a table,my saying so does not change reality, nor does majority vote)
3. The intellect does not simply give value to things(things have value even if I am not thinking about them, tables exist and have value as tables even when I’m not thinking about them)
4. The denial of the proper relation of the intellect to reality is inherently at odds with proper human activity(Insanity is one of the most obvious denials of reality by the human intellect, I don’t believe the man who tells me he is Napoleon Bonaparte simply because he says so)
5. Therefore (the logical leap) the very essence of truth consists in the conformity of the intellect and the things in themselves. Now I think it logically follows that this is a conformity of thing and intellect is a definition of truth tied up with the existence of things. knowledge on my view is true because it declares the existence of things. Morality as it deals with things(People in act as still things) is a conformity of the intellect the things in act and is objective and has a true/false value.*

I establish the existence of objective morality itself before I go into the details.*

But unlike tables and chairs morality isn’t a physical entity, so I don’t know how you could compare morality to it. I don’t really follow. Morality is a concept or an idea. It’s not physical. You seem to be arguing that morality must exist because people are inclined to believe it does, or that because the brain feels the need to set guide lines for itself those most actually exist in some form? I got lost at point five. Treat me like I’m dumb for a second.
Theophorus;10011597:

One question for you, let’s take this to its logical extreme for a moment if morality is relative, why was German National Socialism wrong to look for “lebensraum” and a 1000 year Reich back in 1939? Why was it wrong to kill a few(million) people who got in their way? No that is a far less stringent argument for objective morality but the gut jerking common-sense approach also works for me

I said morality is subjective. It’s influenced by a number of things. That could be the society they live in, conclusions they’ve come to themselves, things they’ve been taught ETC. However, I suppose animals and people are drawn to some sort of morality. It’s a good survival technique, too, especially amongst social creatures like us. However, I believe that what the Nazis did was wrong for my own personal reasons. I can’t say much more than that. Objective morality is flawed in the same way, though. Where do the morals come from? And what if that source is telling you to kill? Is that okay?

Imagine a colony of only atheists. Where would their truth come from? Who would decide it and how?

Truth isn’t the same as morality. Morality isn’t truth, that’s what I’m saying. Morality only exists in our own minds. And each atheist would have a different concept of what is moral or immoral (so do Christians within the same denomination, in fact, but to a less varying degree) but what would be enforced would depend on what kind of government they had. It’s important to note that I am not stating that just because something is enforced it is necessarily moral.

Where their concept of morality came from would depend on the atheist in question, and what his/her influences are. However, everyone has a certain amount of empathy for other people, and all humans (and many animals) have some concept of morality.

Based on what/whose standard?

The individuals.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

This proves nothing. There were slaves who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. That must prove that the Union wasn’t trying to promote the agenda that slavery was wrong.

The Union was an organisation. It actually existed as some kind of unified group. Being a homosexual is a personality trait someone has. You don’t become part of any kind of unified group when you become a homosexual. Comparing the Union to homosexuals is like comparing the Nazis to people with brown hair. One group is a collection of people that have formed a unified group, that have come together because of an agenda, while homosexuals and people with brown hair are simply people that display certain characteristics. Understand?

That’s not what it says. It is saying that things that are wrong require tolerance, not that all things that require tolerance are wrong. Christians in the USSR were not asking for tolerance; they were asking for basic human rights.

So why did the author of that book assume that homosexuality is wrong because it requires tolerance? Maybe homosexuality fits into the second category, and not the first? Maybe it’s something that requires tolerance but isn’t wrong?

Even the statement, “what is wrong or right is subjective” is subjective?

There is no such entity as morality that actually exists. Morality is defiantly subjective, no matter what your source for it is. It exists only in the mind of an individual.

Sorta like the CA gay judge who threw out Prop 8 based on his own personal definition of “marriage”?

If that analogy works, yes.

When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; a successful person is not a testimony of the opportunities in America; it is an indictment of American greed; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. Concern for the rights of criminals has led to hatred of their victims. So, the idea that same-sex partners should be allowed to marry will lead, not to tolerance, objectivity, neutrality, or even indifference, but to hatred of heterosexual couples and heterosexual marriage. – The Closing of the American Mind

The parade of the imaginary horribles. Another absurd slippery slope argument. Did the acceptance of religions other than Christianity lead to people hating Christianity? Of course not. You can’t be that selective with events from history and claim to be making a valid point. It could go either way, or not change anything.

 

[sedonaman]

…Truth isn’t the same as morality. Morality isn’t truth, that’s what I’m saying. Morality only exists in our own minds. …

But truth is used to determine morality. Truth is the conformation of the mind to reality, not the other way around. That is what the homosexual rights movement is trying to do: make society’s minds conform to an ideology that isn’t true.

And each atheist would have a different concept of what is moral or immoral (so do Christians within the same denomination, in fact, but to a less varying degree) but what would be enforced would depend on what kind of government they had. It’s important to note that I am not stating that just because something is enforced it is necessarily moral.

Where their concept of morality came from would depend on the atheist in question, and what his/her influences are. However, everyone has a certain amount of empathy for other people, and all humans (and many animals) have some concept of morality.

Based on what/whose standard? The individuals.

What happens when there is the inevitable conflict? I’ll tell you what: anarcho-tyranny. It has happened before.

The following is an excerpt from an exchange between author “LA” and poster “Mark D.” regarding an article, “The Death of British Civilization” city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html , by Theodore Dalrymple who observed that the most trivial violation of “political correctness” called down the greatest and most immediate response by British law enforcement, while the most egregious violent crimes went ignored:

Mark D.:Coined by Samuel Francis, anarcho-tyranny is the systematic refusal to enforce the law in the most serious and essential matters, such as the protection of citizens from physical violence, combined with the assiduous enforcement of intrusive regulations in the most trivial and specious matters, such as the policing of people’s thoughts and feelings about minorities [hence, ‘tolerance über alles’].

…grounded in liberal anthropology, anarcho-tyranny is perfectly consistent, and in fact required.

Liberal anthropology is derived from Nietzsche: it affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value. Within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth; and there is no principle [e.g., God] by which to discern among them.

Society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one’s preferences over those of others.

“On the ‘anarcho’ side this translates into affirmation of the individual human will over such traditional values as private property, public order, and even human life. If a crime of violence is committed, a conviction may be sustained, but a long incarceration is viewed with suspicion, as the imposition of a collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that committed the crime. It is not legitimate within a liberal community to assert the communal will over against an individual human will (unless, of course, that individual human will contests the über principle of liberalism itself). [This is why we get cases like a judge sentencing the man in New Hampshire who molested a little girl for five years to only six months in jail.]

“On the ‘tyranny’ side, it is obvious that the preferences of individual human wills are sacrosanct, such as sexual orientation, lifestyle, dissent, and so forth. Any speech, thought, or action that threatens a protected preference is therefore punished with the utmost severity as a direct threat to the ultimate good – the individual human will (which is above critique). And because the individual human will is the source of all goodness, it cannot be relativized by any ‘status,’ particularly status within a religious or ethnic minority. Those wills in the majority therefore must be restrained, and those wills in the minority must be protected, so that a principle of absolute equality is maintained. In fact, within a liberal society, the fiction is maintained that there is no majority at all; and if a majority is invoked, this claim is condemned, marginalized, or ignored. Liberal communities have no legitimate majorities. Liberal communities are merely a collection of individual human wills.

"In liberal society, human life is not sacrosanct; the human will is sacrosanct. Abortion policy is the perfect expression of this principle. [This is the Democratic Party today.]
LA replies:Since only the immanent self and its desires have value, without reference to anything outside the self, life does not have value.

Also, Mark D. said: ‘Liberal communities have no legitimate majorities. Liberal communities are merely a collection of individual human wills.’ … this means that ‘in liberal societies, two principles we take for granted no longer apply: (1) consent of the governed, and (2) rule by majority.

…Since only the individual and his will matter, and all individual wills are of equal value, no majority of individual wills can be allowed to force its will on any minority of individual wills [hence the constant harping by liberals that ‘you can’t force your beliefs on me’].

Therefore the society cannot be ruled on the basis of the consent of the majority, also known as the consent of the governed. The society must be run by a non-elected instrumentality [e.g., the courts] that is independent of the governed, in order to protect the equality of all individual wills.[Emphasis added]

 

[Regular_Atheist]

But truth is used to determine morality. Truth is the conformation of the mind to reality, not the other way around. That is what the homosexual rights movement is trying to do: make society’s minds conform to an ideology that isn’t true.

What ideology would that be? And, yes, I suppose I would agree that we use the truth to determine morality. Though sometimes people don’t. Sometimes they base it off faith.

What happens when there is the inevitable conflict? I’ll tell you what: anarcho-tyranny. It has happened before.

The following is an excerpt from an exchange between author “LA” and poster “Mark D.” regarding an article, “The Death of British Civilization” city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html , by Theodore Dalrymple who observed that the most trivial violation of “political correctness” called down the greatest and most immediate response by British law enforcement, while the most egregious violent crimes went ignored:

Mark D.:Coined by Samuel Francis, anarcho-tyranny is the systematic refusal to enforce the law in the most serious and essential matters, such as the protection of citizens from physical violence, combined with the assiduous enforcement of intrusive regulations in the most trivial and specious matters, such as the policing of people’s thoughts and feelings about minorities [hence, ‘tolerance über alles’].

…grounded in liberal anthropology, anarcho-tyranny is perfectly consistent, and in fact required.

Liberal anthropology is derived from Nietzsche: it affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value. Within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth; and there is no principle [e.g., God] by which to discern among them.

Society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one’s preferences over those of others.

“On the ‘anarcho’ side this translates into affirmation of the individual human will over such traditional values as private property, public order, and even human life. If a crime of violence is committed, a conviction may be sustained, but a long incarceration is viewed with suspicion, as the imposition of a collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that committed the crime. It is not legitimate within a liberal community to assert the communal will over against an individual human will (unless, of course, that individual human will contests the über principle of liberalism itself). [This is why we get cases like a judge sentencing the man in New Hampshire who molested a little girl for five years to only six months in jail.]

“On the ‘tyranny’ side, it is obvious that the preferences of individual human wills are sacrosanct, such as sexual orientation, lifestyle, dissent, and so forth. Any speech, thought, or action that threatens a protected preference is therefore punished with the utmost severity as a direct threat to the ultimate good – the individual human will (which is above critique). And because the individual human will is the source of all goodness, it cannot be relativized by any ‘status,’ particularly status within a religious or ethnic minority. Those wills in the majority therefore must be restrained, and those wills in the minority must be protected, so that a principle of absolute equality is maintained. In fact, within a liberal society, the fiction is maintained that there is no majority at all; and if a majority is invoked, this claim is condemned, marginalized, or ignored. Liberal communities have no legitimate majorities. Liberal communities are merely a collection of individual human wills.

"In liberal society, human life is not sacrosanct; the human will is sacrosanct. Abortion policy is the perfect expression of this principle. [This is the Democratic Party today.]
LA replies:Since only the immanent self and its desires have value, without reference to anything outside the self, life does not have value.

Also, Mark D. said: ‘Liberal communities have no legitimate majorities. Liberal communities are merely a collection of individual human wills.’ … this means that ‘in liberal societies, two principles we take for granted no longer apply: (1) consent of the governed, and (2) rule by majority.

…Since only the individual and his will matter, and all individual wills are of equal value, no majority of individual wills can be allowed to force its will on any minority of individual wills [hence the constant harping by liberals that ‘you can’t force your beliefs on me’].

Therefore the society cannot be ruled on the basis of the consent of the majority, also known as the consent of the governed. The society must be run by a non-elected instrumentality [e.g., the courts] that is independent of the governed, in order to protect the equality of all individual wills.[Emphasis added]

Or, y’know, in some societies people might find others who share similar ideas and vote for certain people who share those ideas to lead their nation. If I’m honest, apart from some kind of anti-liberal agenda pushing I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve. We live in a society where almost everyone has conflicting views surrounding issues. And, there are right-wing or Conservative atheists. There is a notable atheist who made a similar argument. He was mentioned on this forum in a reply to an argument I made. Surely this is an argument against a certain political viewpoint than an argument for objective morality?

 

[Giants]

Definition of marriage is pretty basic.

It’s not properly basic. It’s contingent on prior truth claims actually proving out. And they don’t.

Our definition of marriage can be presented without using God as a referent…

The other arguments typically trotted out revolve around the incompatible nature of various body parts with each other (irrelevant to the question of marriage), or on phony claims about the inferior nature of same-sex couples acting as parents (also irrelevant - gay couples are eligible to adopt, even when they aren’t legally married).

fix:

Does that mean logic and law can be separate? If the law defines a certain race of people as less than human does that make the definition in accord with truth?

Sure it can. There’s no rule that says laws are, by definition, logically sound. But when they are not, the question becomes, ‘On what basis are they not?’ That they disagree with your theology is, or on the biological claims you derive from it, is not a workable answer.

Our religious definition is consistent with truth and the law. Your definition is plastic and inauthentic.

No, your religious definition is consistent with your religion, which you, in turn, claim is The Truth. The law just happens to agree with you in certain places.

Because truth does not matter to you.

It matters a lot to me. But shouting at the rain has never stopped it from raining. But carrying an umbrella has often kept me from getting wet.

It is not a matter of Dogma. It is a matter of truth.

Part of your Dogma is that your Dogma is The Truth. They don’t separate.

sedonaman:

No, it wouldn’t. The ancient Greeks and Romans knew nothing of the Judeo-Christian God, but they still had one man, one woman [OMOW] marriage.

The ancient Greeks and Romans probably had better reasons for maintaining that custom than do 21st century American Christians.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Logic can be devastating also.

If the argument is “Same sex marriage cannot be allowed because children are impossible”, then it is logical to apply the same argument to other similar situations where children are impossible.

There are valid arguments against same sex marriage being allowed by the Catholic Church, but that is not one of them. The Catholic Church does allow some marriages where children are impossible.

rossum

But many cases of infertility in couples can be cured by centers researching natural cures or by doctors specializing in such matters, the other group however has no natural or unnatural cure at all for their desires except repentance and/or chastity.

Shalom
God bless

 

[ArchangeMichel]

Never.

God Loves everyone without condition. Jesus would be very happy to go to a wedding and change water into wine… He has shown us that He Loves and does not judge. He HAS gay Friends and He Loves them! He wish them happiness together and a big Family!!! Jesus wants His friends to be respected and to be considered equal in law and in social standards.

Thats the Jesus I know!!!

 

[aragonjohn1]

God Loves everyone without condition. Jesus would be very happy to go to a wedding and change water into wine… He has shown us that He Loves and does not judge. He HAS gay Friends and He Loves them! He wish them happiness together and a big Family!!! Jesus wants His friends to be respected and to be considered equal in law and in social standards.

Thats the Jesus I know!!!

 

[ArchangeMichel]

This is beside the point. Because adoption presupposes the prior existence of the child, homosexuals add no value when it comes to propagating the species.

But to address your question, there are many straight couples eager and able to adopt, and where is the proof that gay adoption is just as good for the child as heterosexual adoption? Here again, we have the necessity for the use of the force of law to compel societal acceptance of an idea that it finds repugnant. Adoption exists to provide children with the parents they need, not to provide adults with the children they want. And in the case of homosexual adults, I suspect it has more to do with forcing social acceptance of homosexuality than wanting to provide needed parents to a child.

Why do you say repugnant? It is unloving and disrespectful! Not a Catholic style…
Homosexual parents can sometimes be better than heterosexual parents. It depends on How much they Love their children and how they teach unconditional Love and respect of others. Faithful parents are important, and some gay couple are more faithful than some heterosexual couples… It is not about sexuality, it is about LOVE.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus would be very happy to go to a wedding and change water into wine…

What do you mean? He’d be happy to go to a gay wedding and change water into wine?

He has shown us that He Loves and does not judge.

Of course He judges. He commands us to judge, as well. (See John 7:24)

He HAS gay Friends and He Loves them! He wish them happiness together and a big Family!!! Jesus wants His friends to be respected and to be considered equal in law and in social standards.

Thats the Jesus I know!!!

Indeed. And this is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[Crescentinus]

Nicely put.

Someone mentionned the “cheap rhetoric”, its appeal to emotion and to pity is hard to counter with rational arguments. For some an ad with two good-looking men and a smiling child is all it takes to convince them that homosexuals can be the best parents. You know in all US TV sitcoms or talkshows filmed before a live audience, every time there is something emotional or slightly poignant that happens, some in the audience go, “ah”(spelling?). I call it the “ah” factor.

It was I who had pointed it out.
Most of their arguments and responses are appeals not to reason but to emotion. That is how they are able to get so much rabid converts.

 

[ArchangeMichel]

What do you mean? He’d be happy to go to a gay wedding and change water into wine?

Marriage is the first Sacrement because it is the first Miracle Jesus did. The Church decided Marriage would be an example of God’s Love in the world (a Sacrement = A Gift of God’s Love). Jesus changed water into wine at Cana because Mary told Him: “They have no more wine”. Wine is a symbol of God’s Love. See, romantic love last a time, while Commited Love is a Gift of Self and comes not at the beginning, but toward the end. Jesus, or Self-Sacrifice, transforms romantic love (water) into wine (Commited Love). By the Cross, Jesus showed Us Commited Love: An Everlasting Love, Eternal Love. Marriage as a Sacrement can be an example of Jesus’ Cross.

Gay couples can also be good examples of Commited Love. That is why I wrote that Jesus would go to their wedding and change water into wine: Their romantic love can become a Commited Love AND an example of God’s Love in the world.

Of course He judges. He commands us to judge, as well. (See John 7:24)*
*

John 7:24 = “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

Only God can judge. None can pretend to sit on His throne. The reason why only God can judge is because He is omniscient and omnipotent: meaning that He knows everything and Is in everything. The only way we can use righteous judgment is by Following HIM. Jesus said to the adulterous women:“I do not Judge you”, He said: I did not come to condemn, but to save… etc. Jesus Loves. Love is His Judgment, as shown by the Cross.

Don’t judge gay couple according to appearance (their sex), look at how much they Love. And Love them sincerely and honestly.

BTW: sex is not a sin in itself, using and controlling others with sex is a sin because it is a lack of love and it hurts.

God bless you!

*

 

[PRmerger]

Marriage is the first Sacrement because it is the first Miracle Jesus did.

Whether it is the first sacrament or not, that point is irrelevant.

The Church decided Marriage would be an example of God’s Love in the world

Well, I wouldn’t put it that the Church decided this, but rather discerned it.

But, okay.

Jesus changed water into wine at Cana because Mary told Him: “They have no more wine”. Wine is a symbol of God’s Love. See, romantic love last a time, while Commited Love is a Gift of Self and comes not at the beginning, but toward the end. Jesus, or Self-Sacrifice, transforms romantic love (water) into wine (Commited Love). By the Cross, Jesus showed Us Commited Love: An Everlasting Love, Eternal Love. Marriage as a Sacrement can be an example of Jesus’ Cross.

Okay.

Gay couples can also be good examples of Commited Love.

It is an example of disordered love. That a man can commit to another man and “love” him is irrelevant. It is still disordered.

That is why I wrote that Jesus would go to their wedding and change water into wine.

No. Jesus would never confirm anyone in their sin. He tells them, “The Church welcomes you. But go and sin no more.”