"the Catholic Church Can’t Change." The Washington Post

[add]

I'm not questioning anything. I am a licensed psychiatrist. And I am making a judgement as a qualified professional.

Are you the doctor :science:  or the patient :crazy: ?  

 

[Evangetholic]

Just so we are clear neither fear of being kicked off this forum or even bodily harm will ever result in me calling evil good.

[add]

Just so we are clear neither fear of being kicked off this forum or even bodily harm will ever result in me calling evil good.

 

that's the spirit
 

[Maggyie]

Marriage and sexual relationships are different things.  I don't know why you are trying to equate the two.

 

This is actually a very good point Autumn made. In discussing the role of marriage in society, many, MANY people feel that if you can legally have sex, you should have the legal right to marry. Polyamorous relationships truly are in the same place gay relationships once were (see Newsweek). And the point about the legal age of marriage being moved around is a good one, too - 18 was not chosen because "that's the age at which you get your high school diploma." Plenty of people get diplomas earlier than that, later than that, or not at all. And as Autumn showed, in many states the legal age of marriage is well below 18 already.

 

It's an arbitrarily selected age that has nothing to do with biological readiness for sex (that would be post-menstruation for females, or between the ages of 12-14) and nothing to do with emotional readiness (if you want to wait until brain development is complete, we should move the legal marriage age up to the 20s).

 

If you are going to make the argument that there is no social reason to control marriage based on the gender of participants, there's also NO good argument for controlling it based on number of participants or an arbitrarily selected, biologically irrelevant age boundary.

 

Of course, if you want to argue that there IS a valid social reason for not allowing 13 year-olds to marry, or allowing 3-5 people to marry each other., or allowing same sex marriage.. that's different.

 

And it's consistent reasoning.

 

But then, you'd be the Catholic Church.

[r2Dtoo]

Ever heard of tuff love?  Your idea of charity is the rodney king version. Can't we all just get along.  I said nothing in that post I am ashamed of.  Admonish the sinner is a corporal work of mercy.    God bless and Have a nice day.  I will include you and Hasan in my prayers this weekend and at Mass.

Perhaps apes view throwing their poo at others as "tuff love", but we homo sapiens generally view it as an insult at best.

 

You really are the court jester of this forum aren't you?

 

What your sexual preference is, is none of anyone's business. When you attempt to elevate your choice in life to defy God's natural law and normalize it, then it is a big deal. When it is being taught to 5 year olds in government schools, it is an issue. When you are in Disneyland and it is overtaken by "Gay Days" with the most flamboyant behavior in clear view of children, babies and adults, it is an issue.

 

When people like yourself, victims of the college indoctrination process, believe that not only shouldn't there be any public or moral opposition to this immoral behavior, but it should be embraced otherwise that person is simply an idiot, homophobe [place other dismissive phrasings here].

 

I do not care what you do. You like to sleep with sheep, that is your problem. And that is the issue, keep it your problem. Do not ask me to pay for your "dependent," do not attempt to historically change persons of history to give credibility to your dysfunction. 

 

And as I have said from the very beginning of this insane move to full immorality, one cannot prevent a person who identifies as bi-sexual to demand they can marry from both sexes to fulfill their new, government deemed "right." Heck, now we have 3 "parents" on birth certificate in Florida.

 

The next real step here, because you can't have any opposition, is what former Mayor Newsom attempted to do, ban the Bible. You have to, it clearly states this behavior is prohibited. And now you have the "Queen James" bible which just rewrites it to make being gay ok.

 

This perversion, gay normalization, is perverting all of society at its will, without any care of what damage it is doing to the family, the faith, to the natural order. And of course, without care to God.

 

Get your bells on...

To address your concern over the alleged lewd behavior at Disneyland on "Gay Day" I would imagine that it was exaggerated, and likely based on ennroeous assumptions.   I never worked at Disneyland, but I did work a few summers at Kings Dommion here in Virginia and we had a "Gay Day" as well.  For half the day the park was open to the general public and for the last half it was open only to some gay rights group that bought it out.  I didn't see any lewd behavior there.  All I saw was a few gay couples holding hands.  I see no reason why it would have been any different had I been working at Disneyland, esepically the part about straight people and children seeing it.  It's not really a Gay Day if you're going to have straight couples there as well.

 

And the 3 parent birth certificate had nothing to do with bisexuals marrying whoever they want, obviously.  Here's the actual story.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-judge-approves-birth-certificate-listing-three-parents-233555185.html

 

My advice to you would be to stop reading whatever far-right Chirstian rag you've been viewing and actually start thinking for yourself.  You are listening to extremely homophobic media outlets that make Fox News look like Bravo.  Please don't let them win by inspiring false outrage in your heart.

 

      

 

This is actually a very good point Autumn made. In discussing the role of marriage in society, many, MANY people feel that if you can legally have sex, you should have the legal right to marry. Polyamorous relationships truly are in the same place gay relationships once were (see Newsweek). And the point about the legal age of marriage being moved around is a good one, too - 18 was not chosen because "that's the age at which you get your high school diploma." Plenty of people get diplomas earlier than that, later than that, or not at all. And as Autumn showed, in many states the legal age of marriage is well below 18 already.

 

It's an arbitrarily selected age that has nothing to do with biological readiness for sex (that would be post-menstruation for females, or between the ages of 12-14) and nothing to do with emotional readiness (if you want to wait until brain development is complete, we should move the legal marriage age up to the 20s).

 

If you are going to make the argument that there is no social reason to control marriage based on the gender of participants, there's also NO good argument for controlling it based on number of participants or an arbitrarily selected, biologically irrelevant age boundary.

 

Of course, if you want to argue that there IS a valid social reason for not allowing 13 year-olds to marry, or allowing 3-5 people to marry each other., or allowing same sex marriage.. that's different.

 

And it's consistent reasoning.

 

But then, you'd be the Catholic Church.

If you're arguing that  the differing age of consent to marry and have sex seems inconsistent and illogical I would agree, but considering it has always been that way I don't see how your slippery-slope argument holds up.  Oh, and just because some people graduate early, graduate later, or don't graduate at all has nothing to do with the norm.  My assertation that 18 is the age of consent for sex (as well as most other adult behavior) because it's the typical age one gets a high school diploma still stands.

   

Edited February 17, 2013 by r2Dtoo

[Maggyie]

Perhaps apes view throwing their poo at others as "tuff love", but we homo sapiens generally view it as an insult at best.

 

 

If you're arguing that  the differing age of consent to marry and have sex seems inconsistent and illogical I would agree, but considering it has always been that way I don't see how your slippery-slope argument holds up. 

   

 

(emphasis mine) This is the "appeal to tradition" argument. Specifically Western, modern tradition. In fact historically speaking, in most cultures, the tradition is VERY different. Why do you think "it has always been that way" is a relevant argument for limiting legal marriage based on age? But then at the same time argue it's not okay to limit it based on the gender of participants? Isn't that discriminatory of you?

[r2Dtoo]

(emphasis mine) This is the "appeal to tradition" argument. Specifically Western, modern tradition. In fact historically speaking, in most cultures, the tradition is VERY different. Why do you think "it has always been that way" is a relevant argument for limiting legal marriage based on age? But then at the same time argue it's not okay to limit it based on the gender of participants? Isn't that discriminatory of you?

Because a society's values change over time.  Just because those values have logical inconsistencies when manifested through the law does not necessarily mean that those logical inconsistencies will grow into changing societies values again.  This is the main point I'm making against the slippery-slope argument that always comes up in these debates.

[thessalonian]

Perhaps apes view throwing their poo at others as "tuff love", but we homo sapiens generally view it as an insult at best.

 

   

 

You need a thicker skin if you are going to come on a faithful Catholic website  and challenge orthodox Catholic teaching.  You started the poo stuff but if it made your shorts bunch I apologize. 

[r2Dtoo]

You need a thicker skin if you are going to come on a faithful Catholic website  and challenge orthodox Catholic teaching.  You started the poo stuff but if it made your shorts bunch I apologize. 

I called your argument poo.  You said "poo to you" making it personal.  Perhaps you should listen to hsmom's post and read it with, what do you Catholics call it, some humility, I believe?

[Evangetholic]

Where in the Bible does it suggest that the Christian mission is the moral reform of the heathen? I am correct in saying our mission is to preach the Gospel to heathens and right-living to Christians?

[thessalonian]

I called your argument poo.  You said "poo to you" making it personal.  Perhaps you should listen to hsmom's post and read it with, what do you Catholics call it, some humility, I believe?

 

And you are truly humble I guess.  If you were you  would not have responded at all.  Hmmmmm.....Let's see, saying poo to MY argument is okay but if I say "poo to you", why that is okay.  Seems the context of my statement is well back at ya with your poo.  Yes the target was your argument so what is your point.   I guess you have decided to go make this about my "insult" to you instead of your weak and defenseless argument.  Oh I suppose that will be considered another "attack" and insult.  So be it. Stop whining and get a thicker skin.  

[thessalonian]

Where in the Bible does it suggest that the Christian mission is the moral reform of the heathen? I am correct in saying our mission is to preach the Gospel to heathens and right-living to Christians?

 

You are?  That's not what the great commission says.  Nor the parable of the sower.  The seed is the gospel and some of it falls on rocky ground.
 

[Evangetholic]

The Gospel is not: "Stop doing evil." Those parables are not: "Stop doing evil." There's nowhere in the New Testament where we are ever encouraged to think that our mission to the non-Christian world is to get them to behave according to Gospel norms.

Rather we are to cause them to come to believe the Gospel which is the law that leads to righteousness.

[r2Dtoo]

And you are truly humble I guess.  If you were you  would not have responded at all.  Hmmmmm.....Let's see, saying poo to MY argument is okay but if I say "poo to you", why that is okay.  Seems the context of my statement is well back at ya with your poo.  Yes the target was your argument so what is your point.   I guess you have decided to go make this about my "insult" to you instead of your weak and defenseless argument.  Oh I suppose that will be considered another "attack" and insult.  So be it. Stop whining and get a thicker skin.  

I never once said I was at all humble.  That's for you Catholics.  Nice dodge, trying to turn your context around from your personal insult.  FAIL, but I'll let it pass, and wait and see if anyone with some sense of human dignity replies to my arguments like Maggie, or Autumn, or anyone else on phatmass.

Edited February 18, 2013 by r2Dtoo

[thessalonian]

I never once said I was at all humble.  That's for you Catholics.  Nice dodge, trying to turn your context around from your personal insult.  FAIL, but I'll let it pass, and wait and see if anyone with some sense of human dignity replies to my arguments like Maggie, or Autumn, or anyone else on phatmass.

Very likable?  Baloney.