Gay Marriage, And Divorce = Massive Hypocrits?

[Guest Daniel Nicholas]

This is probably common-knowledge. The Catholic church (and most Christian religions) are very publically against same-sex marriage and obviously the biggest objectors to gay marriage. Personally, I believe its wrong that they should make their religious beleifs law.

Jesus, did not say anything, not a single word, on homosexuality at all. (Which I find strange)
http://ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml

However, Divorce...

[b]Matthew 19:[/b]9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." - Jesus

[b]Mark 10:[/b]11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." - Jesus

[b]Luke 16[/b]:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." - Jesus

And........... What is the punishment for adultery in the bible?

_____________________________________________________________________________

Now, what I find extremely strange is, why isn't there huge Christian/Catholic opposition to divorce? Where are the anti-divorce demonstrations? Why isn't the Westboro Baptist church running around with "GOD HATES DIVORCEES" "DIVORCEES GO TO HELL" signs?

Jesus appears [b]extremely[/b], [b]extremely, extremely[/b] anti-divorce, yet, not so much anti-homosexual?


So, why is not divorce placed on the agenda of Christians/Catholics whom want to enforce their religion on the entire population?

Shouldn't divorce be a higher priority? It far appears as if it should.

My own logical explanation, is that the majority of Christians just use their religion to support their own bigotry. So it's like 'cherry picking' bible verses they want enforced. They don't like it and they have a religion to support their bigotry. (not all Christians, but obviously most)

But how do you explain it?

[Resurrexi]

I definitely don't think that divorce and remarriage should be legal. I also am in favor with getting rid of the no-fault divorce.


BTW, I think you should read what the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i] says about divorce:

"Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

"If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.

"Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

"It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2384-2386)

Edited December 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

I do wish that the hierarchy of the Church should speak out more against civil divorce and remarriage; however, it has become such an accepted part of our society that I don't think any politicians would listen to what the bishops say.

I would also like to add this quote from the [i]Catechism[/i]:
"If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense."

However, even if a civil divorce has been obtained, it is not moral to remarry.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Guest Daniel Nicholas]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 December 2009 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1260774218' post='2020113']
I do wish that the hierarchy of the Church should speak out more against civil divorce and remarriage; however, it has become such an accepted part of our society that I don't think any politicians would listen to what the bishops say.

I would also like to add this quote from the [i]Catechism[/i]:
"If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense."

However, even if a civil divorce has been obtained, it is not moral to remarry.
[/quote]

I believe divorce is completely fine, my parents divorced and It didn't destroy or ruin my childhood. And I believe it would be more harmful if people were not allowed to re-marry and were forced to die alone.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Daniel Nicholas' date='14 December 2009 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1260773796' post='2020108']
Jesus appears [b]extremely[/b], [b]extremely, extremely[/b] anti-divorce, yet, not so much anti-homosexual?
[/quote]

I'm sure that Christ is both opposed to remarriage of divorced persons and to homosexual acts. For we have the teaching of St. Paul, an apostle of Christ that, "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [b]nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind[/b], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

[Guest Daniel Nicholas]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 December 2009 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1260774546' post='2020116']
I'm sure that Christ is both opposed to remarriage of divorced persons and to homosexual acts. For we have the teaching of St. Paul, an apostle of Christ that, "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [b]nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind[/b], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
[/quote]

The man in your display picture appears rather effeminate.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Daniel Nicholas' date='14 December 2009 - 02:08 AM' timestamp='1260774483' post='2020115']
And I believe it would be more harmful if people were not allowed to re-marry and were forced to die alone.
[/quote]

And I believe in the indissolubility of marriage.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Daniel Nicholas' date='14 December 2009 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1260774824' post='2020117']
The man in your display picture appears rather effeminate.
[/quote]

Sandra Bullock probably wouldn't appreciate it that you called her a man.

[Guest Daniel Nicholas]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 December 2009 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1260774902' post='2020120']
Sandra Bullock probably wouldn't appreciate it that you called her a man.
[/quote]

Ohmygod, She definately sent off my tranny radar... I would have swore she was a man if I saw her in person.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Daniel Nicholas' date='14 December 2009 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1260774824' post='2020117']
The man in your display picture appears rather effeminate.
[/quote]

I would also like to add that in the context of 1st century Koine Greek, "the effeminate" referred to those who took a "passive" role in homosexual acts, while "liers with mankind" referred to those who took the "active" role. Just so that you know what St. Paul meant.

[Guest Daniel Nicholas]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 December 2009 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1260775059' post='2020123']
I would also like to add that in the context of 1st century Koine Greek, "the effeminate" referred to those who took a "passive" role in homosexual acts, while "liers with mankind" referred to those who took the "active" role. Just so that you know what St. Paul meant.
[/quote]

Why not just put them in the same basket? Im sure they must have changed roles every once in a while.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Daniel Nicholas' date='14 December 2009 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1260775179' post='2020124']
Why not just put them in the same basket? Im sure they must have changed roles every once in a while.
[/quote]

[Guest Daniel Nicholas]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 December 2009 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1260775335' post='2020126']

[/quote]


No, but really. Sandra Bullocks hair looks like a wig from a $2 shop, her hairdresser should be sent to hell for creating an abomination.

[Guest Daniel Nicholas]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 December 2009 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1260775335' post='2020126']

[/quote]


No, but really. Sandra Bullocks hair looks like a wig from a $2 shop, thats what gave me the impression the picture was of a drag queen, her hairdresser should be sent to hell for creating such an abomination.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Daniel Nicholas' date='14 December 2009 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1260775179' post='2020124']
Why not just put them in the same basket? Im sure they must have changed roles every once in a while.
[/quote]

Oh my...