Gay's Being Married?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 17 2004, 04:42 PM'] I appreciate your prayers and I love you, too. I don't like sin either -- in fact, I like it so little that I don't even believe in it. [/quote]
lol.. haven't you heard pop psychology though? the opposite of love isn't dislike, it's indifference.

thus you've become indifferent to it.

and only don't like the concept of sin.

bro, with charity agape and love, that's error.

Pax et Agape Por Maria

[Livin_the_MASS]

Good Friday,

Much love brother! Good to hear from ya. I'll put this simple short and to the point because you've been around and know what the Catholic Church teaches.

You are called to live the celibate life brother, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

When two men or women have relations it goes against the way God made it to be brother. You can't be fruitful and multiply. It degrades the martial union!

The marital embrace (between a man and a women) creates life shares love, what you are doing is pleasing yourself and putting God's One Teaching to the side.

Please don't reject it! Pray, ask for grace. You again are called to the celibate life.

Love you brother,
In my prayers
Jason

Edited May 17, 2004 by Jason

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]lundercovera writes:[/b]
So objectively speaking, looking at the nature of humans (animals have nothing to do with this, this is the nature of humans) the only conclusion you can draw unclouded by religious conviction or personal feelings regarding it, is that homosesxual sex is not natural.[/quote]
So what? There are many things that human beings do that aren't natural. Driving a car or flying in an airplane aren't natural, but they're legal. Your argument, while not religiously based, still doesn't provide any reason whatsoever as to why homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal.

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
you asked me for a political opinion in which i wasn't imposing Church teaching on the state.. i gave it to you. The State need only do what is in the best interest of the society: thus giving benefits only to couples who will produce children to better support the society is a politically sound concept.[/quote]
I don't support any state that tells people how many children to have or if they should have them. I think that's the very opposite of democracy and freedom.

[quote][b]Jason writes:[/b]
You are called to live the celibate life brother, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

When two men or women have relations it goes against the way God made it to be brother. [b]You can't be fruitful and multiply.[/b] It degrades the martial union![/quote]
Infertile couples can't be fruitful and multiply either. The church marries them. Why? Is anyone going to address this question?

[quote]Please don't reject it! Pray, ask for grace. You again are called to the celibate life.[/quote]
I don't believe in grace anymore than I believe in sin, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to pray for that. I pray plenty, and nothing lately has been telling me that I'm called to the celibate life. Maybe your God isn't who you think he is?

[Aloysius]

[u]all the underlined stuff is objective uninfluenced by religion:
let me expand on lundercovera's conclusion that it's not natural and go even further to say he showed that not only is it not natural, but it's anti-natural.[/u]

[u]riding a bike or flying a plane while not natural are surely not anti-natural, they don't go against nature.[/u]

[u]something that goes against nature would be like, burning down the rainforest, or using sperm for something sperm is not intended for.[/u]

[u]State shouldn't tell ppl they have to have children, but the only reason the state should recognize and give benefits to a couple is if they are going to have children. what other thing may the state, objectively speaking, do without establishing a religious institution or overstepping it's bounds and trampling a religious institution? the only reason a secular state has for supporting a couple is that the couple will build up it's society by producing children. this is objectively, no influence of religion or personal feelings.[/u]

okay, the reason homosexuals are not married is much deeper than not being able to have children, including that homosexual unions are anti-natural and against God's will. You asked why the Church still marries infertile people, well now we've stepped over into the arguments from Church teaching part where i don't havta seperate myself from all religious influences. This is the Church's decision because she believes that homosexual unions are against God, and she is backed by scripture and tradition.

as for the inquisition and stuff, i recently saw a book in my [b] public school[/b] library about how the inquisition put off torture and death as far off as possible, simply giving penances and oppurtunities for the ppl to renounce their heretical positions. The numbers you've heard are probably the ones that were inflated by the protestants.

the crusades were called for because Christendome was threatened by the Turks. while some of the crusaders did shameful things during them, the Crusades themselves would fall into a just war under St. Augustine's theory i'm pretty sure. The Church was completely justified in calling for them.

[u]anyway, gays should not be married by the state because it is clearly anti-natural and the state should not endorse anything that is unhealthy and/or anti-natural. gays should not be married by the state because they will not help build up the society by making new citizens.[/u]

[Ellenita]

Good Friday,

I have to take issue with you over your response to my post! I haven't followed the argument about the abuse perpetrated by priests on children in the US perhaps as closely as those of you living there and I accept therefore that I may have misrepresented the generally held view by Catholics in the US concerning the issue if indeed it is held that these priests were really repressed gay men having illicit, since they were priests, relationships with younger men. However, [i]in my mind [/i]there is absolutely no question that sexual abuse carried out by people in a position of power on a minor or a child [i]is entirely different [/i]to two consenting adults of the same sex deciding that they want to have a sexual relationship. Child abuse is often raised as a reason by heterosexual people for denying gay people any recognition or rights at all, thus equating all people who are gay as being abusers, and of course the reality is that paedophiles exist across the whole range of sexuality. It's disingenuous to link the two issues.

On the matter of unmarried priests, it astounds me that men supposedly have so little control over their sexual urges that they cannot live a chaste life as the church requires [b]of all people who are not married[/b]. They know the deal when they freely choose to take on the [i]Sacrament [/i]of Holy Orders. If they don't feel called to a celibate life then maybe they didn't hear their calling to the vocation correctly!




On an entirely different matter, it is really good to see you posting again at PM! Your contributions have been very much missed.....

[Livin_the_MASS]

Nathan,

I love you man but you are getting defensive because you are making up things that make the life style you want to live OK.

You can't brother, no matter how hard you try. Christ's Church has spoken even in Sacred Scripture:

[quote][b]1 Cor 6:9[/b]

[b]Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?[/b] Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes [b]nor practicing homosexuals[/b]

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [/quote]

God is not pushing you away, you are pushing yourself away there is no way to justify this. You Can't!

Please go to Confession, ask God for grace, the devil wants you to go away from the Catholic Church. Don't forget that!

In my prayers
Jason

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
State shouldn't tell ppl they have to have children, but the only reason the state should recognize and give benefits to a couple is if they are going to have children. what other thing may the state, objectively speaking, do without establishing a religious institution or overstepping it's bounds and trampling a religious institution? the only reason a secular state has for supporting a couple is that the couple will build up it's society by producing children. this is objectively, no influence of religion or personal feelings.[/quote]
And yet all heterosexuals who are married, regardless of infertility and/or the decision to use contraceptives, are given full legal recognition by the state and given various benefits throughout the various countries. So while, in theory, your idea may work, in actuality heterosexual married couples are given all the benefits of legal recognition of their unions regardless of whether or not they can or intend to have children.

Based on your argument, there's no reason that the United States can't give legal recognition to gay unions. By your logic, the government must give benefits [i]only[/i] to those who can and intend to have children -- it follows that, until they do, they should give these benefits to homosexuals if they're going to give them to the infertile and to those who contracept.

[quote][b]Ellenita writes:[/b]
Child abuse is often raised as a reason by heterosexual people for denying gay people any recognition or rights at all, thus equating all people who are gay as being abusers, and of course the reality is that paedophiles exist across the whole range of sexuality. It's disingenuous to link the two issues.[/quote]
Homosexuality is blamed by nearly all conservative Catholics in my country as the core reason for the sexual abuse scandal. The bishops, who are themselves to blame, have decided that homosexuals will make the perfect scapegoat. So they continue to blame homosexuals, all the while undermining the National Review Board that they themselves appointed, and refusing to meet requirements for annual audits that they themselves set up.

But yes, homosexuality is viewed by most of the conservative Catholics in my country as the root cause of this scandal, including many bishops. Apparently, this extends beyond my country -- shortly after the scandal came to light, the Vatican issued a statement reaffirming their ban on ordaining gay men (celibate ones, mind you, not active ones), implying that gay men were to blame for the scandal that the Vatican turned a blind eye to. The Vatican and the bishops are more than happy to pawn this off on gay men in order to be protected from the blame themselves. Fortunately, it's not working; the laity isn't buying it, for the most part.

I agree with you that gay men are not to blame. I think the bishops are to blame, for two reasons: first, they allowed this to go on for quite some time without doing anything about it; second, their own policies (i.e. mandatory celibacy) are at the core of the scandal.

[quote][b]Jason writes:[/b]
Please go to Confession, ask God for grace, the devil wants you to go away from the Catholic Church. Don't forget that![/quote]
I'm already "away" from the Catholic Church... there is no going away to be done, I've already gone away and won't be coming back. I don't believe in grace and I won't be going to confession. If I hadn't made that clear enough already (I think I had), there it is again.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 17 2004, 11:36 PM'] And yet all heterosexuals who are married, regardless of infertility and/or the decision to use contraceptives, are given full legal recognition by the state and given various benefits throughout the various countries. So while, in theory, your idea may work, in actuality heterosexual married couples are given all the benefits of legal recognition of their unions regardless of whether or not they can or intend to have children.

Based on your argument, there's no reason that the United States can't give legal recognition to gay unions. By your logic, the government must give benefits [i]only[/i] to those who can and intend to have children -- it follows that, until they do, they should give these benefits to homosexuals if they're going to give them to the infertile and to those who contracept. [/quote]
those who are infertile and still get benefits slide through on a loophole. if the state were to perfectly follow this formula, it wouldn't give monatary recognition to infertile couples. but it is pretty safe to recognize all man-woman relationships monatarily because as far as the state knows without imposing upon ppls medical privacy, there is a possibility of a new citizen.

for a man and woman who contracept, again, there is still the possibility for a child in the future.

the system in place is the best way for the state to look after the greater interest of the society.

what homosexuals are asking for is adding a group of people whom the state will recognize with benefits yet there is absolutely no possibility of a new citizen coming from their sex. this would be a foolish idea for the state to entertain.

besides all that in my political theory of why the state should allow couples benefits, the state does have the right to protect the physical and psychological welfare of citizens. homosexuality, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad psychological health. homosexual sex, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad physical health. the state would be looking after its citizen's welfare by not recognizing such unhealthy unions.

~*Love and Prayers Nathan*~
do not close your heart, do not close your mind
be open to wherever could be true or not
do not assume what has failed you before is false
do not assume what has failed you before will fail you again
just be open, that's all i'm asking

Pax Amorque Christi

[Livin_the_MASS]

I will pray for you Nathan

God Bless You,
May Christ shine His Face upon you and give you peace.

Pax Nathan,
Jason

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
besides all that in my political theory of why the state should allow couples benefits, the state does have the right to protect the physical and psychological welfare of citizens. homosexuality, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad psychological health. homosexual sex, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad physical health. the state would be looking after its citizen's welfare by not recognizing such unhealthy unions.[/quote]
I would like to see one shred of evidence, outside of the Catholic Medical Association (I'm already quite familiar with their theory, thanks) that homosexuality is psychologically harmful and/or that it is, in and of itself, a psychological illness. Tread lightly here. Pointing to the fact that suicide rates are high among homosexuals, for instance, serves to make [i]you[/i] look bad, not us. [i]Why[/i] do you think suicide rates are so high? Do you [i]really[/i] think it's just from being homosexual, or do you think being called intrinsically disordered, our actions intrinsically evil, and being persecuted (sometimes with physical violence) by "good Christians" might have something to do with it?

As for bad physical health, I'd like you to elaborate upon what you mean by that. If you mean what I think you mean, this isn't going to be pretty.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 17 2004, 11:54 PM']I would like to see one shred of evidence, outside of the Catholic Medical Association (I'm already quite familiar with their theory, thanks) that homosexuality is psychologically harmful and/or that it is, in and of itself, a psychological illness.  Tread lightly here.  Pointing to the fact that suicide rates are high among homosexuals, for instance, serves to make [i]you[/i] look bad, not us.  [i]Why[/i] do you think suicide rates are so high?  Do you [i]really[/i] think it's just from being homosexual, or do you think being called intrinsically disordered, our actions intrinsically evil, and being persecuted (sometimes with physical violence) by "good Christians" might have something to do with it?

As for bad physical health, I'd like you to elaborate upon what you mean by that.  If you mean what I think you mean, this isn't going to be pretty.[/quote]
Nathan,

Your not getting any where no matter how hard you try homosexuals sin in thier act. It is against God's law.

It is evil because it is sin, you will never justify sin, I despise and hate all sin, but love the sinners. I am a wretched sinner, everone has their own type of Cross, behold your Cross, pick it up and follow Jesus He will lead you the right way.

So you have no argument whatsoever to make "living out" the life of a homosexual, [b]it is a SIN.[/b]

Your just going to make yourself madder, you need prayer, if you don't want to pray, thats your free will.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 17 2004, 11:54 PM'] I would like to see one shred of evidence, outside of the Catholic Medical Association (I'm already quite familiar with their theory, thanks) that homosexuality is psychologically harmful and/or that it is, in and of itself, a psychological illness. Tread lightly here. Pointing to the fact that suicide rates are high among homosexuals, for instance, serves to make [i]you[/i] look bad, not us. [i]Why[/i] do you think suicide rates are so high? Do you [i]really[/i] think it's just from being homosexual, or do you think being called intrinsically disordered, our actions intrinsically evil, and being persecuted (sometimes with physical violence) by "good Christians" might have something to do with it?

As for bad physical health, I'd like you to elaborate upon what you mean by that. If you mean what I think you mean, this isn't going to be pretty. [/quote]
i base that mainly on ppl's personal testimonies i've heard.

i should look into the actual info i guess.

i sent you a PM

Pax Amorque Christi

[mamalove]

Good Friday,

If you wanted a secular answer as to why homosexual acts are wrong, Aloysius hinted to it... It goes against the natural law. You just can't do that. It's the NATURAL LAW. Just like it is against the natural law for hippos to breed with giraffs and cats to have 8 legs. It just won't work. You may try to kid yourself that it does, but it doesn't.

[quote][b]Good Friday writes[/b]
Infertile couples can't be fruitful and multiply either. The church marries them. Why? Is anyone going to address this question?[/quote]

Look at Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. She was infertile. But through God's Will she concieved. When my mother-in-law was a child, she was stricken with polio. She recovered, but was told she would never be able to concieve a child. She married and had 11 children. Again, God's Will. It is for this reason that the Church allows "infertile" couples to marry. You still believe in God's Will don't you?

[quote][b]Good Friday Writes[/b]
Homosexuality is blamed by nearly all conservative Catholics in my country as the core reason for the sexual abuse scandal. The bishops, who are themselves to blame, have decided that homosexuals will make the perfect scapegoat.[/quote]

Ouch! Watch it with the finger pointing. I am a conservative Catholic and I don't blame homosexuals for the abuse scandal. These horrible acts were done by deeply troubled men, homosexual or not, who should have never been allowed to become priests in the first place. I don't blame the bishops. I blame the seminaries that passed these men through.

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]mamalove writes:[/b]
If you wanted a secular answer as to why homosexual acts are wrong, Aloysius hinted to it... It goes against the natural law. You just can't do that. It's the NATURAL LAW. Just like it is against the natural law for hippos to breed with giraffs and cats to have 8 legs. It just won't work. You may try to kid yourself that it does, but it doesn't.[/quote]
Actually, that's not a good secular answer at all. Yes, there is a natural law, but the application of heterosexuality to the natural law is not agreed upon by all. In fact, the application of heterosexuality to the natural law is most heavily endorsed by the religious and by conservatives. While rare, homosexuality does occur in nature -- there are animals that have homosexual sex.

Secondly, there are many things that are opposed to the natural law that are currently legal. It's not natural to stick a bunch of tubes in someone to keep them breathing after they're brain dead, but it is legal, and in some cases it's a good thing. Celibacy is not part of the natural law, either, and there are many here who would readily agree with me about that. But we don't legislate against these variations from the natural law, because not everything that is unnatural is immoral, unethical and/or illegal.

[quote]Look at Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. She was infertile. But through God's Will she concieved. When my mother-in-law was a child, she was stricken with polio. She recovered, but was told she would never be able to concieve a child. She married and had 11 children. Again, God's Will. It is for this reason that the Church allows "infertile" couples to marry. You still believe in God's Will don't you?[/quote]
I don't believe in the Christian God at all, and I only speak of the Divine using the term God on this phorum out of respect to those who post here. I really doubt that Elizabeth was infertile when she conceived, just as I doubt that Mary was really a virgin. However, it is possible that Elizabeth had fertility problems and conceived. It's been known to happen. But it's preposterous to assume that it [i]could[/i] happen, when in fact the vast majority of truly infertile individuals will never have their own children. Thus, it makes no sense that the church would allow infertile couples to marry because it [i]could[/i] happen. The likelihood is that it [i]will not[/i] happen.

I think the PM scholars would probably disagree with you that infertile couples are allowed to marry because they [i]could[/i] have children. In actuality, and I hate to have to tell y'all what your own church teaches -- the church teaches that because the infertile couple is open to the possibility of children, even though they won't have any, they fulfill the procreative requirement of marriage; they also fulfill the unitive requirement of marriage, that of becoming one flesh, a new creation blessed by God. They are not permitted to marry because God [i]might[/i] let them have children; they're permitted to marry because they're open to the possibility, though unlikely, and because they love each other and want to become one flesh.

No, I can't cite you specific sources, I don't have time. If you doubt what I said above, feel free to go post what I just said in the Question/Answer forum and ask them if it's true.

All that said, even a homosexual couple could be open to the possibility of a child. It may be as unlikely for an infertile couple to procreate as it would be for a homosexual couple to procreate. I'm sure many homosexuals would be open to the possibility that God might make one of them miraculously pregnant if that meant they could marry each other. Yes, I do know that's biologically impossible, but so is a virgin birth -- I don't think I have to tell you that anything is possible with your God.

So, hypothetically, if a homosexual couple were open to the possibility that God could miraculously make one of them pregnant, could they marry? That seems to be what you folks are saying.

[quote]Ouch! Watch it with the finger pointing. I am a conservative Catholic and I don't blame homosexuals for the abuse scandal. These horrible acts were done by deeply troubled men, homosexual or not, who should have never been allowed to become priests in the first place. I don't blame the bishops. I blame the seminaries that passed these men through.[/quote]
Who do you think oversees the seminaries? Or, the better question might be, who is [i]supposed[/i] to be overseeing the seminaries? The bishops, you say?

Ultimately, it is the bishop's responsibility before he lays his hands on someone and says they're going to be a priest forever, that he make darn sure that person has a vocation to the priesthood. It's not the seminary's responsibility, ultimately it is the bishop's. There is no one to blame here but the bishops, no matter how hard one may try.

[mamalove]

Good Friday, I will continue to pray for you (whether you like it or not! ) And I have to say that I feel really sorry for you. I don't think anyone could even convince you that the sky was blue if you thought otherwise.

[quote]Good Friday  April 12, 2004
Being that I've been good throughout Lent, can I be Church Faithful again? Pweeze, dUSt?[/quote]


I'm not sure what happened to you buddy. But I will pray that it is undone.

Edited May 18, 2004 by mamalove