Gay's Being Married?

[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

[Paladin D]

[b]Why[/b] should the Catholic Church [b]change[/b] it's teachings over such an issue? Are all religious organizations (or secular ones in general) bound to follow your set of rules?

Everyone has different beliefs, we aren't all going to agree. So to say that [b]I'm right, you're wrong, so submit to gay marriage[/b] is amusing.

[phatcatholic]

friday,

i just now got to this thread, so the questions and comment that you posed to me may have already been answered. i also realize that the discussion has moved from theological to practical points. however, i would like to give a defense of my last substantial post on this topic. first i will post my argument from the original post, then i'll quote ur reactions and respond to them.

[b]i originally wrote:[/b]
1. Is same-sex marriage open to new life?
--this is an important question b/c, if we look at God, we find that the Love that is His essence from all eternity is inherently open to new life. Afterall, God, for the pure fact that He is Love, spawned two persons of the Trinity as well as all creation! However, when we look at the same-sex partnership, it is not open to new life. The union of the two simply cannot bring from itself a new creation (this will be expounded upon later).

[b]ur response:[/b][quote]Let's ask a related question: Was Jesus open to new life?  Did Jesus marry, as the Jewish tradition of his time called him to do, and did he have children, thus continuing the Jewish people?  The overwhelming response of the church to this question has been: "Absolutely [b]not[/b]."  So it seems that Jesus was not open to new life either, and that he was not truly "like us in all things but sin," since he did not experience something that most human beings experience, and since he did not obey your God's command to "be fruitful and multiply."[/quote]
Jesus' bride was his Church. "new life" is only through Christ Jesus. his brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters are those who hear his message and believe. i say no one is more open to new life then Jesus! sure, this is all speaking in a mystical sense, but u cannot deny that Jesus had a higher calling, and that his perfect humanity transcends any and every way in which we attempt to be naturally human. he is likewise the epitome of purity and devotion to the Church that every priest attempts to perpetuate. furthermore, i contend that celibacy is not universally unnatural......it is only for those who "can't accept it." Jesus himself said that those who can accept it, should. a life singularly devoted to God has always been highly prized, even by the Jews of his day.

[quote]Also, I would ask you the same question I've asked two others: should infertile couples marry or not?  By your logic, it would seem that they should not.[/quote]
since you have later in this thread defined why the church accepts the marriage of an infertile couple, i feel no need to expound upon it any further.


[b]i originally wrote:[/b]
2. Is their a complementarity w/in the same-sex union that communicates the true selflessness of the love found w/in it?
--this may at first seem harsh, but one has to remember that it is the very selfless nature of God’s love that created all that we know. God likewise created a complementarity within the bodies of man and woman so that they naturally communicate this selflessness. The sex organs of the man, b/c they are outside the body, are naturally giving. The sex organs of the woman, b/c they are inside the body, are naturally receiving. When these two come together, there is a true connectedness. the love that comes from this connectedness perfects the selfless quality by creating new life from this very connection.

[b]ur response:[/b][quote]So basically, "God" is heterosexual.  Right?[/quote]
i didn't say that. what i am stating here is that the heterosexual sex act is the only one that can communicate the selfless love (which is inherently open to creation) that epitomizes the love of God (who is likewise open to creation, since his very essence, which is love, spawned two persons of the trinity and all of creation).


[b]i originally wrote:[/b]
3. Is the homosexual sex act a natural act?
--this question is important b/c the perfect unity, and the selfless love, and the openness to creation that typify God are all divine qualities b/c of God’s very nature, b/c of who and what he inherently IS. So, in order to unite our image and likeness to His and thus share in his glory, we must communicate these qualities via our very nature. That is why the homosexual act and same-sex marriage are so often described as “unnatural” and that this quality is so often described as a point against it. The homosexual act is unnatural b/c it is not truly selfless and is not open to creation.

[b]ur response:[/b][quote]There are many times when the "heterosexual act" is not truly selfless and not open to creation. Okay, let me give you a hypothetical example: say you have an infertile couple (not open to creation), and the husband wants to have sex exclusively for his own pleasure (selfish) -- does this render the "heterosexual act" in this case unnatural? By your logic, it would, because "it is not truly selfless and is not open to creation."

If that's the case, then there are many times when the "heterosexual act" is unnatural even within marriage, and I'm sure there are many Catholics on this phorum guilty of an unnatural "heterosexual act."[/quote]
just b/c an act can be unnatural in certain instances does not mean that it is inherently unnatural, or unnatural by its very essence. the homosexual sex act, however, is inherently and by its very essence unnatural.


[b]i originally wrote:[/b]
4. Does same-sex marriage typify the unity found between the Church and Jesus Christ, the "Bride" and the "Bridegroom."
--this is an important question b/c the bible uses the very members involved in our greatest earthly communion to describe the union between Jesus Christ and His Church. therefore, marriage must typify that union. on a purely physical level, the same-sex marriage is not properly analogous b/c it cannot help but contain either two Brides or two Grooms. since the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, nothing w/in it is unintentional, so the masculinity of one member (the Groom) and the femininity of the other member (the Bride) cannot be ignored.

[b]ur response:[/b][quote]And yet every human soul is imaged as feminine, and as a bride of Christ, regardless of the physical gender of the person's body. This concept is found again and again in the writings of the mystics. Thus there are many men throughout the world who are, on the mystical level, "brides of Christ." You do state that you're speaking "on a purely physical level," but there's more to it than that. We are not purely physical, according to your church's own teaching.[/quote]
i agree that both men and women make up the Church, which is the bride of Christ. but this is an analogy (reality?) most often applied to a group. in some cases i have seen it used to describe a female who has devoted her life to God, but i have never seen it applied to an individual man. even if it were so used, the intent would be to describe one's relationship w/ Christ, NOT humans' relationship w/ each other. the mere fact that the marriage of male and female is used in the bible to describe Christ's relationship w/ the Church is proof that it is only this heterosexual union that completes the analogy as it should.

[quote]Your argument is extremely flawed -- not to mention that it is based entirely upon your church's teaching, which society is not bound to accept. But even within the realm of your church's teaching, it is flawed, because it appears to confine the sacrament of marriage to fertile couples (thus voiding marriages of infertile couples?), and it doesn't make any sense at all.[/quote]
i was operating in the theological realm, before it was requested that arguments be made on a secular level. as for infertile couples, this has already been addressed.

[quote]Based on the fact that your God is described in all your church's creeds and in your scriptures as masculine, are only men made in the image and likeness of your God?[/quote]
of course not! in all of my discussion on the image and likeness of God, i have no where suggested that only men can unite themselves to this image. the church has no where suggested that either. the masculine language used to describe God is not some invention of a patriarchal Church who resented the role of Mary Magdalene (see The Da Vinci Code ). these are the words of the Bible, the words of the Holy Spirit. the Church merely accepts what has been divinely revealed.

at any rate, just b/c masculine language is used, this does not mean that females too can unite themselves to his image. afterall, we unite our image w/ his by alligning ourself w/ his [i]essence[/i]. masculinity is not the essence of God, it is merely language used to describe his role in our lives. selfless love, openess to creation, mercy, forgivness, omnipotence........these things are his [i]essence[/i], and nothing keeps females from being just as properly alligned as males.

---------------
it appears that i have now responded to all of ur reactions to my original post. i apologize if this response has now become irrelevant. i guess i just wanted to make sure that u understood where i was coming from, and that u knew that i hadn't forgotten about you.

may God Bless You and bring you Peace,
phatcatholic

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='May 18 2004, 11:56 AM'] [b]Why[/b] should the Catholic Church [b]change[/b] it's teachings over such an issue? Are all religious organizations (or secular ones in general) bound to follow your set of rules?

Everyone has different beliefs, we aren't all going to agree. So to say that [b]I'm right, you're wrong, so submit to gay marriage[/b] is amusing. [/quote]
This post was responding to the topic starter, btw.

[mulls]

life only works if the guy's thing goes into the girl's thing, which allows for the natural beautiful stuff to happen.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='May 18 2004, 04:21 PM'] This post was responding to the topic starter, btw. [/quote]
topic starter was a hit and run in the Q & A board and prolly doesn't even know it's now in the debate table.

see the "winged" part of "winged messenger"? he flew away.

[CreepyCrawler]

[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. [/quote]
hananiah posted something back on page one about this. i'm cutting and pasting here for your review:

"According to recent study done in the Netherlands, a country where homophobia is virtually non-existent, males who engage in homosexual sex are far more likely than those who do not to experience depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder [17]. The health effects of homosexuality are truly devastating. In fact, an epidemiological study done in Vancouver, Canada found that practitioners of male homosexual sex lost between 8 and 20 years on their life expectancy"


you can't exactly blame 'hateful christians' for psychologically damaging homosexuals in the netherlands, can you?

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]mamalove writes:[/b]
I feel really sorry for you.[/quote]

[quote][b]mulls writes:[/b]
life only works if the guy's thing goes into the girl's thing, which allows for the natural beautiful stuff to happen.[/quote]

Those are just two examples of why it was a mistake to post here again. Won't happen again. Adios, folks.

[mulls]

haha sorry, i guess that didn't lighten the mood like i expected it to. no harm intended.

[phatcatholic]

this is a sensitive topic mulls............gotta be careful

[mulls]

live & learn.

[JP2Iloveyou]

GF, I'm going to respond to this even though you claim to have left.

I have not had the time to read this entire thread, but let me make a couple of points.

First of all, you incorrectly quoted me. I was suggesting a stronger argument in favor of gay marriage when I suggested a 14th Amendment argument. I was not arguing in favor of that view. It just drives me nuts when people use blanket opinion as a premise in an argument. I was suggesting a much stronger premise for that person so he could learn to see the error in his argument.

OK, on to what you said. Remember, I have not read this entire thread.

If you are going to start with the premise that we cannot have any laws in society that are religiously based, then we can have no laws. Every single law imposes someone's morality on another. The fact that I can only drive 55 on the highway when I might want to drive 110 is a case of somebody's morality being imposed on me. By your logic, we should not be able to ban anything, up to and including murder. Now, you said at some point, I'm paraphrasing here, that we can come to know murder is wrong through reason. The idea is that, if everybody went around killing people, it would take away from the collective flourishing of society. But, I ask you, what if everyone was homosexual? That would also take away from the collective flourishing of society. You see GF, we can't just allow people to go around doing whatever they dang well please.

Honestly, I think we are approaching the question from two separtate premises, or starting points. You are approaching the problem from a totally morally relativistic point of view, I am approaching it from a totally morally absolutist point of view. Thus, total agreement is not possible. The fact of the matter is, in making law, morality is necessarily imposed on people, there is no getting around it. So, in a sense, you are correct, I do want my morality imposed on society, as do you.

You as a relativist, are demanding an absolute moral principle of tolerance, thus going against your own principles. Since I've brought that up though, what is tolerance? Tolerance, by definition, is nothig more than allowing people to do something you have a fundamental disagreement with. I have a disagreement with homosexual activity. I think that it is objectively wrong. Because of my love for homosexuals though, I am going to try and stop them from engaging in that. If I had a child about to touch a hot iron, I would stop her as well, I wouldn't just say, "Well, Suzie, if you want to touch the iron, go right ahead." So, turning the debate around, why don't you be tolerant of people who want to ban gay marriage?