With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

[PRmerger]

So, your God is not omnipotent then?

rossum

Putting “Can God” before nonsense doesn’t cease to make it nonsense, rossum.

Can God make a married bachelor?

No, he can’t. That’s nonsense before the “Can God” addition. It’s nonsense after the “Can God” addition.

Can God make a square circle?

No, he can’t. That’s nonsense before the “Can God” addition. It’s nonsense after the “Can God” addition.

So, it doesn’t detract from God’s omnipotence to say, “No, God cannot make homosexual sex fertile.”

 

[PRmerger]

I do believe that we must reclaim the word “discrimination”.

 

[fix]

And God could cause two homosexuals to reproduce as well. If God is omnipotent, then such a thing would be perfectly possible. I do not find this argument very convincing; because an omnipotent God can do anything you cannot just assume that He will only act in one set of circumstances and not in another.

rossum

God can do what is logical. If it were illogical He would not be God. Like asking if God could make a square circle. Not logical at all.

 

[PRmerger]

Heterosexual couples are also infertile sometimes. John Paul II supports sex during periods of infertility because it is also an act on union between two lovers.

Sure.

You will see, if Love is not the only judge, many arguments will lead to contradictions. If Love is Judge, it does not fail.

Non-sequitur, but sure.

 

[Crescentinus]

It’s not even ironic when homosexualists discriminate even though they whine about discrimination.

 

[sedonaman]

… Surely this is an argument against a certain political viewpoint than an argument for objective morality?

It was not intended to be an argument for a certain political viewpoint.

 

[sedonaman]

… It is not about sexuality, it is about LOVE.

Then why did the Church shut down it adoption agencies in Massachusetts rather than knuckle under to the government to adopt out to homosexuals?

 

[edwest2]

Love?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

In Canada, it’s “Do I”?

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

And divorce.

“Same-Sex Divorce: Another Reason for Marriage Equality”

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Can you tell me, which one of those two examples you would chose as a fair example of a Catholic Marriage?:

1. In 2013, a 45yo man named David married a 14yo woman and has brutal sex with her. They are sexually complementary, so she gets pregnant with twins. Everybody believes the husband is faithful to his teenager wife who has to stay home to serve her husband and care for the kids. In fact, the husband is not faithful because he does not love his wife and she does not love him either (but you don’t know that fact).
2. In 2013, a 45yo man named David married a 43yo man named Joshua and they have loving respectful sex together. They addopt twins. They both have a job and serve one another at home. They rise their children together and are really faithful to each other until the end of their life. They both dearly Love each other (but you don’t know that fact).

This is why it is said: "Do not judge according to appearances, but judge rightly’

To answer your question, neither is an example of Catholic marriage. In the first case, fidelity (at least) is lacking, in the second case sexual complementarity is lacking.

 

[rossum]

Weak rhetorical question is weak.

Weak “omnipotent” god is not the Christian God. Omnipotent Christian God can make a new human being from just a rib. Omnipotent Christian God can obviously make a new human being from two entire human beings.

If God can make infertile heterosexual couples miraculously fertile, then God can make infertile homosexual couples miraculously fertile. That is the nature of omnipotence. He can do anything.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Putting “Can God” before nonsense doesn’t cease to make it nonsense, rossum.

Can God make a married bachelor?

No, he can’t. That’s nonsense before the “Can God” addition. It’s nonsense after the “Can God” addition.

Can God make a square circle?

No, he can’t. That’s nonsense before the “Can God” addition. It’s nonsense after the “Can God” addition.

So, it doesn’t detract from God’s omnipotence to say, “No, God cannot make homosexual sex fertile.”

Of course He can. He made a new human being from just rib. How many ribs are there between two homosexuals?

rossum

 

[sedonaman]

Can anyone give me one example where Jesus clearly discriminated against someone?

Thanks!

:coffeeread:

We must first agree on what is meant by “to discriminate”. It means simply to observe a difference. The very purpose of laws is to discriminate; they discriminate between bank robbers and non-bank robbers, speeders and non-speeders, for example.

To answer your question, Jesus discriminated between money changers and non-money-changers in the Temple.

With that definition, I’m sure you can find plenty of other examples of Jesus discriminating.

 

[fix]

Can you tell me, which one of those two examples you would chose as a fair example of a Catholic Marriage?:

1. In 2013, a 45yo man named David married a 14yo woman and has brutal sex with her. They are sexually complementary, so she gets pregnant with twins. Everybody believes the husband is faithful to his teenager wife who has to stay home to serve her husband and care for the kids. In fact, the husband is not faithful because he does not love his wife and she does not love him either (but you don’t know that fact).
2. In 2013, a 45yo man named David married a 43yo man named Joshua and they have loving respectful sex together. They addopt twins. They both have a job and serve one another at home. They rise their children together and are really faithful to each other until the end of their life. They both dearly Love each other (but you don’t know that fact).

This is why it is said: "Do not judge according to appearances, but judge rightly’

Both wrong.

 

[fix]

Heterosexual couples are also infertile sometimes. John Paul II supports sex during periods of infertility because it is also an act on union between two lovers.

Couples are not infertile, individuals can be. Marital relations during times when conception is not possible does not change the conjugal dimension of the act or the marriage.

Same sex persons have no conjugal dimension to the act or the pairing.

You will see, if Love is not the only judge, many arguments will lead to contradictions. If Love is Judge, it does not fail.

Love is an act of the will. Love never contradicts our Lord’s will.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Of course He can. He made a new human being from just rib. …

rossum

And from the first man’s rib, He made a female companion for the first man, NOT of the same sex. Male and female He made them, to populate the earth. That should give you a clue you of God’s reasoning, that He is God of order, not disorder.

The clay does not know more, is not wiser, than the Potter. Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Of course He can. He made a new human being from just rib. How many ribs are there between two homosexuals?

rossum

Why don’t you as a liberal Buddhist try your logic with the Dalai Lama that he is wrong in saying homosexual sexual pairing is not natural ( he said ‘wrong hole’), instead of picking, choosing, and twisting biblical history and verses in Scripture, the lessons of which you do not live or believe, to justify same sex ‘marriage’ with Catholics?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course He can. He made a new human being from just rib.

Fair enough.

Think about it this way, rossum:

Can God make an act that is inherently unjust a just act?

The answer is: no.

Because that is nonsense.

It is akin to saying: can God make a married bachelor. It is logical nonsense.

Similarly, think about the nonsense in this sentence: Can God make an act that is inherently infertile a fertile act?

The answer is: no.

Because that is nonsense.

 

[rossum]

Why don’t you as a liberal Buddhist try your logic with the Dalai Lama that he is wrong in saying homosexual sexual pairing is not natural ( he said ‘wrong hole’), instead of picking, choosing, and twisting biblical history and verses in Scripture, the lessons of which you do not live or believe, to justify same sex ‘marriage’ with Catholics?

I am not a member of the dGelug-pa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, which the Dalai Lama leads. While I respect him, I do not follow him. Just as you respect the Patriarch of Constantinople, but do not follow him. Buddhism has the same liberal/conservative split on this issue as does Christianity, as you correctly point out I am on the liberal sode.

I am not trying to persuade the Catholic Church to do anything, indeed I have already stated earlier in this thread, post #8, that I don’t think that the Catholic Church will change:

The Catholic Church did not change when civil divorce became legal. I very much doubt that it will change its rules on same sex marriage where/when civil same sex marriage becomes legal.

At most it might reduce the level of campaigning it does and move on to other things. How many Catholic anti-divorce demonstrations do you see compared to anti-gay marriage demonstrations? The level of campaigning will eventually reduce to the same as the anti-divorce campaign, though the doctrine will not change.

I am pointing out the weakness in the “infertility” argument against gay marriage. Many heterosexual couples are also infertile. That argument is weak, and is not likely to convince anyone who is not already convinced.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

I am pointing out the weakness in the “infertility” argument against gay marriage.

You are correct in that it is not the best argument against homosexual unions, IMHO.

However, it is still a valid one.

Many heterosexual couples are also infertile.

Yes. And has been already pointed out, their union is still ordered towards procreation, while homosexual male sex is not. (There cannot even be any argument that homosexual female sex is even remotely ordered towards procreation. There is no sexual joining possible.)

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct in that it is not the best argument against homosexual unions, IMHO.

However, it is still a valid one.

Yes. And has been already pointed out, their union is still ordered towards procreation, while homosexual male sex is not. (There cannot even be any argument that homosexual female sex is even remotely ordered towards procreation. There is no sexual joining possible.)

I believe we’ve already had this conversation, rossum, on a thread of a similar vein.

We’ve already talked about why an infertile couple (say, a couple in their 60’s) can have a valid, sacramental marriage, while a homosexual couple cannot.

Here’s what the difference is between an infertile couple whose union is still ordered towards procreation (although who may never conceive) vs a homosexual sterile couple who will never conceive. (They can’t even engage in intercourse, actually.)

Take this analogy, borrowed from Bad Catholic.

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules** their play is still ordered toward its proper end.**

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because** they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball. **