My Response To The Recent Gay Marriage Decision In The Supreme Court

[Lil Red]

I didn't say I lack compassion for the willfully ignorant; I said I have less compassion. For those who are genuinely ignorant, my patience, love and compassion is seemingly endless. For the willfully ignorant, I definitely feel the strain on my "nice" resources.

 

so glad you explained that. i didn't get it. i think some of my brain cells leaked out during my bike ride today. 

[franciscanheart]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!! I am enlightened!

It's official: You're definitely difficult to like.


Different strokes and OMGRACIOUS: What was that show? In the 80s maybe? Anyone? Something strokes... [off to IMDB it.]

[CrossCuT]

Hey, we are the same. 

I have less "compassion" for certain traits as well. :) 

But my infinite love surpasses that of the deepest depths of the ocean.

[franciscanheart]

Hey, we are the same. 
I have less "compassion" for certain traits as well. :)
But my infinite love surpasses that of the deepest depths of the ocean.

Let me rephrase: We are difficult to like.

My Halloween costume has me stocking up on brillo pads already. This could be the most expensive costume to date...

[CrossCuT]

Im very lovable, actually.   :love:

 

But Im also an evil villain.  :evil:

[franciscanheart]

someone very well known here once said something to this effect: you are impossible to like online. everyone hates you until they meet you.


truer words have rarely been spoken. (and even those who hate me in person end up becoming some of my best friends.)

[CrossCuT]

Aww man. If I cared about people judging me while admitting to not knowing me at all Id probably feel sad.

 

But Im not :)

 

You shouldnt care what they think either Franny.

[MissScripture]

It's official: You're definitely difficult to like.


Different strokes and OMGRACIOUS: What was that show? In the 80s maybe? Anyone? Something strokes... [off to IMDB it.]

Diff'rent Strokes! I loved that show!

[franciscanheart]

Diff'rent Strokes! I loved that show!

Yeeessssssssss! I'm in the middle of a Cosby Show marathon but that'll totally be next.

[Socrates]

Again, the inclination toward those acts is disordered; the people are not.
 
It's cool. :) I just try to keep the spread of ignorance (and/or linguistic abuse/confusion) to a minimum whenever possible. :like:

 

You had stated, "Homosexuality is not a disorder."

 

"Homosexuality" refers to homosexual tendencies or inclinations, or the homosexual condition.

 

I'll expand the quote from the CDF letter to make this clearer:

 

 

 

 At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

 

 

The homosexual condition or tendency (or homosexuality) is itself objectively disordered, though not sinful if not willed.

 

Homosexuality is a condition or inclination, not a person.  That should be clear.

[Socrates]

(double post)

 

Edited June 27, 2013 by Socrates

[MissScripture]

Yeeessssssssss! I'm in the middle of a Cosby Show marathon but that'll totally be next.

The more I talk to you, the more I realize how awesome you really are!

[Socrates]

One of my favorite definitions for love comes from Pope John Paul II's theology of the body: "The communion of persons means existing in relationship of mutual gift."  And in the words of Cardinal Christopher Schonborn, we ought to "respect long-term, committed relationships between people of the same gender."   :hardhead:

 

If you read Blessed John Paul II's words in context, it is quite clear that he is speaking of a married man and woman, and that according to the theology of the body, homosexual acts are wrong, as are all acts of sodomy and other sexual acts not open to life.

 

That all homosexual activity is gravely disordered and sinful is clearly stated in the Catechism, and has always been the constant teaching of the Church.

 

The Church's opposition to legal same-sex "marriage" and "civil unions" is made very clear and explicit in the CDF document: "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons."

 

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

 

Sadly, Cardinal Schonborn's opinions are contrary to the moral teachings handed down by the universal Church, and do not constitute orthodox Church teaching on the matter.

 

(This post also originally contained a link to a dissident "Catholic" group condemned by the Church, though the mods took care of that.)

 

Father, I can only pray that you are joking, and are not trying to teach, contrary to the Church, that homosexual relationships are morally acceptable.  If this is a joke, it is not funny, and can cause confusion and scandal, especially as it is coming from an ordained priest.

[Ice_nine]

I think the mallet on the head smiley means "this guy (shoborn sp?) is a doofus).

 

eta: actually I changed my mind. I think Cappie might be ripping the cardinal's words out of context to make a point. "long-term committed same sex relationships" do not necessarily entail a sexual component, and perhaps Father laments the oversexualization of human relationships and is emphasizing the need for deep and meaningful (and holy!) human relationships between people of the same gender.

 

Edited June 27, 2013 by Ice_nine

[PhuturePriest]

someone very well known here once said something to this effect: you are impossible to like online. everyone hates you until they meet you.


truer words have rarely been spoken. (and even those who hate me in person end up becoming some of my best friends.)

 

But I'm simply so amazing that I won over all of your hearts anyway. :love:

[cappie]

I think the mallet on the head smiley means "this guy (shoborn sp?) is a doofus).

 

eta: actually I changed my mind. I think Cappie might be ripping the cardinal's words out of context to make a point. "long-term committed same sex relationships" do not necessarily entail a sexual component, and perhaps Father laments the oversexualization of human relationships and is emphasizing the need for deep and meaningful (and holy!) human relationships between people of the same gender.

 

:like2: Correct. I'm sorry if I have been misunderstood. I still act as an Australian and don't appreciate the American idiom. :unsure:

[franciscanheart]

:like2: Correct. I'm sorry if I have been misunderstood. I still act as an Australian and don't appreciate the American idiom. :unsure:

I understood what you meant. :like:

[ChristinaTherese]

My two cents:

1) Jokes on the Internet can be much harder to understand than IRL, because you have neither tone of voice or facial expressions to help. So it's understandable that this all happened, and I don't think it's really holier-than-thou, it's just stemming from not understanding the joke and/or not thinking it's funny anyway.

2) People need to be understood in their own personal context. dUSt, franciscanheart, TJTM, TJMH, and everyone else on this site have their own personal backgrounds that color their responses. For franciscanheart, for instance, this is a sensitive issue in the first place and its understandable that she is not always particularly patient about this. Because we don't all know each other outside of here, it's really easy to take things badly and rub against each other and create drama unnecessarily.

Ergo: Just chill and try to understand compassionately.

[Socrates]

:like2: Correct. I'm sorry if I have been misunderstood. I still act as an Australian and don't appreciate the American idiom. :unsure:

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[add]

Gay marriage cannot negatively affect the sanctity of marriage because it has already been destroyed.  I’m sorry but marriage today, in our time is no longer sacred.

However, holy matrimony is Sacred! 

I. E.:  Did you realize that, the “Americans for Divorce Reform” estimates that probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.

That in 1850, when black men, women and children in several of the states could be ripped from their loved ones and sold as property, a higher percentage of their children were being born and raised in marriage-based, two parent families than there are a century and half later, in 2012.

That the birth rate in the U.S. hit an all-time low last year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of those births, 40.7 percent were born to mothers out of wedlock.

That the out-of-wedlock birth rate for America’s young women is 53 percent and increasing.  

Isn’t it funny or ironic that men and woman are choosing to start a family without getting hitched but samesex couples are clamoring to tie the knot???

Lastly, There can be little doubt that Abortions will be soon provided free under the US universal healthcare plan and that catholic hospitals and universities will be forced to participate…(Financially)

 

put a fork in it, it's done

Edited June 28, 2013 by add