With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrish1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
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.)
Click to expand...
While that criterion is very valid for Catholic marriage, it is not relevant for civil marriage. Nobody expects that the Catholic Church is going to change its doctrine any time soon.

However, it is a fact now that gay civil marriage exists, and looks like it will spread further, to Washington State for example.

Catholic doctrine does not equate to civil law, or vice versa.

rossum
 
rossum said:
While that criterion is very valid for Catholic marriage, it is not relevant for civil marriage. Nobody expects that the Catholic Church is going to change its doctrine any time soon.

However, it is a fact now that gay civil marriage exists, and looks like it will spread further, to Washington State for example.

Catholic doctrine does not equate to civil law, or vice versa.

rossum
Click to expand...
Truth is truth, rossum. There is no such thing as Catholic truth.

That’s like saying, “Well, since you’re a mathematician you can say that a square has 4 sides, but that’s not how I see it. I am not a mathematician and therefore your rules don’t apply to me.”
 
PRmerger said:
…
That’s like saying, “Well, since you’re a mathematician you can say that a square has 4 sides, but that’s not how I see it. I am not a mathematician and therefore your rules don’t apply to me.”
Click to expand...
That’s polylogism, i.e., truth being interior to the human.
 
PRmerger said:
Truth is truth, rossum. There is no such thing as Catholic truth.

That’s like saying, “Well, since you’re a mathematician you can say that a square has 4 sides, but that’s not how I see it. I am not a mathematician and therefore your rules don’t apply to me.”
Click to expand...
This made me lol; it also makes me wonder how anyone who thinks with the relativistic mindset can even remotely claim to be logical.
 
sedonaman said:
That’s polylogism, i.e., truth being interior to the human.
Click to expand...
If by that this paradigm professes that truth is different for every person, then that is ridiculous. With this reasoning no one could tell the Rev. Fred Phelps that his teachings are false. For that is what he discerned in the “interior.”

However, it is indeed true, as St. Paul proclaims, that the truth lies in the human heart, knowable to all who can reason.
 
Even if members or leaders within the church wanted to change, it cannot. Because it is clear from God’s word that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong in God’s eyes. A gay marriage is not a real marriage, in God’s eyes. A marriage is only between a man and a woman.
 
PRmerger said:
If by that this paradigm professes that truth is different for every person, then that is ridiculous. With this reasoning no one could tell the Rev. Fred Phelps that his teachings are false. For that is what he discerned in the “interior.”
…
Click to expand...
I think you have the idea. We have all heard it in the statement, “What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.”
Polylogism
Click to expand...
Polylogism is the belief that different people or groups have different forms of logic. Since logic is the art of non-contradiction, polylogism can have only two possible meanings. Either reality is different for each group, or logic is a loose term for method of acquiring knowledge. The latter, though, is not how it is used. Those speaking of polylogism state that the conclusions from the different logics are different. This means that although they both claim to be methods of acquiring knowledge, the truth of the knowledge is different for different groups. This can mean only that reality is different for the different groups.
Click to expand...
Polylogism is an absurd idea. It hides behind a more realistic idea, though. People can acquire knowledge in different ways. There are various methods one can use in approaching truth. Some of these methods are legitimate while others are not. Polylogism pretends to encompass the legitimate methods by claiming different cultures are more prone to using particular methods.
Click to expand...
This is just camouflage. Polylogism is nothing but social subjectivism. It claims that knowledge is whatever you want it to be, but applies it to groups. Cultures, tribes, or races are the deciders of truth, and reality conforms to their views. What’s true for a Greek philosopher is not true for an Eastern philosopher. This does not mean that the two believe different things. It means that the two are both right, even though they contradict one another. It is a denial of the Law of Identity.
Click to expand...
Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.
Click to expand...
solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
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
Click to expand...
Indeed He can do anything, but…He will not, because sodomy is not in compliance with His will.
 
PRmerger said:
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. **
Click to expand...
Well said. Thank you. The Catholic voice will always matter in the public square, since the other side does not want to see, or claims not to see, that their intent is disordered.

Peace,
Ed
 
sedonaman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Denotation is not the be all and end all. Connotation matters. When used in reference to marriage equality, discrimination has a negative connotation.
 
rossum said:
And God could cause two homosexuals to reproduce as well.
Click to expand...
Which of the unlucky two men will bear a child in his rectum, then? God in His mercy will never do such a thing. But even an infertile woman has a womb in which to bear the child.
 
rossum said:
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.
Click to expand...
So I gather you’re a “cafeteria buddhist”? (sorry couldn’t resist)
jmcrae said:
Which of the unlucky two men will bear a child in his rectum, then? God in His mercy will never do such a thing. But even an infertile woman has a womb in which to bear the child.
Click to expand...
Telling it like it is.
 
rossum said:
While that criterion is very valid for Catholic marriage, it is not relevant for civil marriage. Nobody expects that the Catholic Church is going to change its doctrine any time soon.

However, it is a fact now that gay civil marriage exists, and looks like it will spread further, to Washington State for example.

Catholic doctrine does not equate to civil law, or vice versa.

rossum
Click to expand...
Hi rossum!
The Catholic Church already supports gay marriage… because the Catholic Church is a Universal Communion of Love: it Unites those Born in the Spirit, such as Saints… and you and me if we Love Like Jesus Loves: wellcoming everybody, Loving without conditions… The actual catholic institution is confused between sex and Love 🤷. and many don’t like it when I write that, but its not me: its all in the news! They judge according to appearances apparently! 😉 and they have a huge bias and ignorance is rampant (I am ignorant too, compared to God!!! :o) - Judge the validity of words (or teachings) according to the works of whom who speaks them… and I don’t mean to be rude :getholy: I just hope nobody will kick me out of this forum! 😉
 
ArchangeMichel said:
Hi rossum!
The Catholic Church already supports gay marriage… because the Catholic Church is a Universal Communion of Love: it Unites those Born in the Spirit, such as Saints… and you and me if we Love Like Jesus Loves: wellcoming everybody, Loving without conditions… The actual catholic institution is confused between sex and Love 🤷. and many don’t like it when I write that, but its not me: its all in the news! They judge according to appearances apparently! 😉 and they have a huge bias and ignorance is rampant (I am ignorant too, compared to God!!! :o) - Judge the validity of words (or teachings) according to the works of whom who speaks them… and I don’t mean to be rude :getholy: I just hope nobody will kick me out of this forum! 😉
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does indeed promote love without conditions. But it recognizes marriage as a conjugal union between men and women.

The Church does not confuse sex with love, but a great many secularists do.
 
jmcrae said:
Which of the unlucky two men will bear a child in his rectum, then? God in His mercy will never do such a thing. But even an infertile woman has a womb in which to bear the child.
Click to expand...
Well, actually no. Infertile women don’t always have a womb. Histerectomy is a surgery that takes the womb out of the body for health reasons, the women can still have normal sex after the surgery if there are no complications.

There are many examples of non-fertile sexuality that the catholic institution supports for marriage. Thus, infertility and reproduction issues are not the reason for not letting gay people marry, since other couple can get married even if they are infertile or can’t have children or don’t want to.

It would be an insult to senior faithful catholics if the catholic institution would refuse to marry couple over 50years old! They would be sooooo offended! But not so offended when it happens to others… 😉

I Love you! :love:
 
JimG said:
The Catholic Church does indeed promote love without conditions. But it recognizes marriage as a conjugal union between men and women.

The Church does not confuse sex with love, but a great many secularists do.
Click to expand...
Can I have an example?
Thanks!
❤️
 
ArchangeMichel said:
Well, actually no. Infertile women don’t always have a womb. Histerectomy is a surgery that takes the womb out of the body for health reasons, the women can still have normal sex after the surgery if there are no complications.

There are many examples of non-fertile sexuality that the catholic institution supports for marriage. Thus, infertility and reproduction issues are not the reason for not letting gay people marry, since other couple can get married even if they are infertile or can’t have children or don’t want to (like 60yo+ couples)

It would be an insult to senior faithful catholics if the catholic institution would refuse to marry couple over 50years old! They would be sooooo offended! But not so offended when it happens to others… 😉

I Love you! :love:
Click to expand...
The Church does not refuse to marry infertile couples. It does refuse to marry those who are permanently and incurably incapable of engaging in marital relations (without regard to fertility). Same sex couples are by nature incapable of engaging in marital relations. To put it bluntly, the parts don’t fit. No marriage is possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top