Redefining Marriage

[Laudate_Dominum]

And I'm not trying to beat anyone over the head or anything. I share my opinions openly, but I realize that we have to follow our own conscience and work things out in our own way.

I respect you a great deal hyper.

[hyperdulia again]

:)

[Laudate_Dominum]

it wasn't supposed to be funny...i leave the church from time to time...this is one of those times...i'm exhausted with thinking she's wrong feeling hurt by loving her and hating her all at once...so i've decided to just love ...which means that i must leave her...outside of her what she says doesn't hurt and i need pay no mind to her other children.

That is sad to me. I do not doubt your sincerity nor can I truly appreciate the depths of your struggles.... I know that there can be times when Christ's disciples feel they must distance themselves from Him. But I also know that after the disciples fled during His passion He later came to them as the Risen Christ, and did not meet them with words of condemnation but said, "peace be with you".

I hope you find a way to avoid this move. I am not one to talk.. I have abandoned Christ entirely. I am right now no better than the pagans. I am as Esau who sold his birthright for one morsel of food. Our Lady will protect you, of this at least I am sure.

[jasJis]

Morality is about much more than who gets hurt. It is about objective values, good and evil. Sometimes morality hurts, it can require sacrifice and suffering, but it is for the good. And legitimizing homosexual activity is harmful to the common good.

Laudate, think about what I posted, and what you stated. It's the same thing. Morality is about who get's hurt. If evil is fostered, people will get hurt eventually or immediately. If good is fostered, then people will benefit evenutally or immediately. Higher moral thinking is being able to consider the bigger, more long-range picture of eventual or abstract consequences. Most people think in current terms.

dairy,

How do you address my question to you about non-biological homosexuality? I await an answer... :whistle:

[hyperdulia again]

I actually see it now, from the Catholic viewpoint even without that statement from the CDF there is no way to support same sex civil unions, because legally defining the relationships in a positive way really does encourage people to go forth and engage in them...now this doesn't matter to me because I don't believe homosexual acts are a sin...but Catholics should believe everything their Church teaches...there isn't any room for saying homosexual acts are sinful and legalizing homosexual relationships is harmless...not only is this double-think [speak]...this would be an un-Catholic position.

[hyperdulia again]

I actually see it now, from the Catholic viewpoint even without that statement from the CDF there is no way to support same sex civil unions, because legally defining the relationships in a positive way really does encourage people to go forth and engage in them...now this doesn't matter to me because I don't believe homosexual acts are a sin...but Catholics should believe everything their Church teaches...there isn't any room for saying homosexual acts are sinful and legalizing homosexual relationships is harmless...not only is this double-think [speak]...this would be an un-Catholic position.

[dairygirl4u2c]

dairy,

How do you address my question to you about non-biological homosexuality? I await an answer...

I would say that we should make the law for the homosexuals who are truly homosexual. I'd even go so far as to say that we should make a law for the homosexuals who want a homosexual relationship just as an alternative to a normal marriage. I'd argue this for its own sake.

But since you know the Truth, I will have to ask you on your premises what harm homosexual relationships incur. What is the damage done?

And at the very least what about those truly biological exceptions, why not accomodate them? Are we going to say that since they're freaks, they have no basis in our law?

Edited February 14, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[PatrickRitaMichael]

I would say that we should make the law for the homosexuals who are truly homosexual. I'd even go so far as to say that we should make a law for the homosexuals who want a homosexual relationship just as an alternative to a normal marriage. I'd argue this for its own sake.

But since you know the Truth, I will have to ask you on your premises what harm homosexual relationships incur. What is the damage done?

And at the very least what about those truly biological exceptions, why not accomodate them? Are we going to say that since they're freaks, they have no basis in our law?

What is the point of having a separate law for everyone? Since when did the government have the right to tell people who to sleep with (according to the Texas decision)?

And what about the people who are biologically homosexual? No one is advocating calling them freaks and not allowing gay marriage doesn't make them freaks. That is homophobia, not the same thing as desiring to keep the institution of marriage the same.

[hyperdulia again]

do you actually support making homosexual acts illegal prm?

[littleflower+JMJ]

Homo marriages puts homosexuality into the catagory of a 'normal' choice.  It makes society accept it and removes the criterea of homosexuality being 'biological'.  Science will show you that the vast majority of 'gay' behaviour is based on sociaological environment issues, not the possibility of it being biological.

great post jasJis.

also, i have posted this in the past. i think i shall repost it.

--------------------------

Is homosexuality genetic?

In Mary Beth Bonacci's book "Real Love," she talked about how she wanted to know if homosexuality was genetic.

She asked a well qualified genetic scientist because this same scientist made a most profound discovery in history-- Bonacci quotes the great geneticist Dr. Jerome, the scientist who discovered the genetic link to Down's Syndrome. When asked if homosexuality was genetic, Dr. Jerome replied that it had not been proven, that he did not believed that homosexuality was genetic and furthermore it never would be proven.

~Mary Beth Bonacci is a nationally acclaimed Catholic Chasity and Sexuality Speaker, her website is www.reallove.net (everything she teaches is based on the Church's teachings and Pope John Paul II's writings)

----------------------------

the media generally makes sweeping and ignorant statements that have no scientific basis or anything based on actual research, they can say whatever they wish because well....they can. and they do cuz their in the power to do so.

today our culture is embracing alot of things in this time that we live in, and just because everyone may think its okay, doesnt' make it right.

truth is neverchanging.

that is what makes our God and faith so amesome and beautiful. :wub:

and may the Love and peace of Christ be with us all.

God bLEss!

+JMJ

[Laudate_Dominum]

Laudate, think about what I posted, and what you stated. It's the same thing. Morality is about who get's hurt. If evil is fostered, people will get hurt eventually or immediately. If good is fostered, then people will benefit evenutally or immediately. Higher moral thinking is being able to consider the bigger, more long-range picture of eventual or abstract consequences. Most people think in current terms.

dairy,

How do you address my question to you about non-biological homosexuality? I await an answer...

Some people try to ground morality in subjectivity and the experience of displeasure. I was trying to stress the importance of having a metaphysically grounded ethics. Obviously you were not giving a full explaination of your views and I was replying more for the sake of clarity and not as a refutation of what you were saying. thx

[nikkan_hanil]

I don;t know but I think practically all celeberties have told us what not to do in a long term relationship. :roll:

[jmjtina]

amesome resources, great reading.

Catholic Answers Live: (amesome)

Feb 6, In Defense of Marriage

Vatican - CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

USCCB

Defending Traditional Marriage Resources

[dairygirl4u2c]

I want to make a clarification:

And at the very least what about those truly biological exceptions, why not accomodate them? Are we going to say that since they're freaks and/or that they have different morals and hold different perspectives on natural law than us, they have no basis in our law?

jas jis,

How do you address my question to you about biological homosexuality? I await an answer...

[littleflower+JMJ]

I want to make a clarification:

jas jis,

How do you address my question to you about biological homosexuality? I await an answer...

that is all speculation.

you are asking for something that is not even proven.

God bless,

+JMJ

[Guest lundercovera]

it's irrelevent whether or not it's biological. the fact is that a secular government's role in uniting two ppl is for the good of society, providing support to two ppl so they have a better chance of raising an upstanding citizen. ppl who adopt get the same type of support without the need to recognize any sort of relationship.

it's biological for me, that doesn't mean that the government should provide marriage to me. because such a marriage would not produce new citizens for society, so why must society give that relationship marital priveledges?

I will have to ask you on your premises what harm homosexual relationships incur.

for one, it'd give ppl like me just one more straw on the back, one more lil temptation to not disbelieve Christ, but to just reject him and go find a man and get married. what harm would it incur? the line would be drawn in a whole new spot, the first step down the 'slippery slope' the question isnt what harm it would incur, but what benefit would it be? it would not support the raising of new citizens, which is basically the only authority the state has to join two ppl together. there is no other reason you could give the state authority to join two ppl together without violating the seperation of church and state.

[Aloysius]

check the reference section

Same-Sex Marriages

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/marrcomp.htm

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0064.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0045.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0070.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0041.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0038.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0063.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0066.html

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/darling.html

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/index.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/HOMARRIA.TXT

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0013.html

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=496

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5292

[PatrickRitaMichael]

1. marriage is a sacrament, something belonging to the church. the state can recognize or not recognize whatever it wants to and it doesn't mean anything.

2. it says that a man physically incapable of getting an erection can contract a valid marriage. the church doesn't.

1. i agree. although i think an invalid marriage is better than no marriage at all.

2. is that true?

[Laudate_Dominum]

1. i agree. although i think an invalid marriage is better than no marriage at all.

2. is that true?

1. marriage is a sacrament, something belonging to the church. the state can recognize or not recognize whatever it wants to and it doesn't mean anything.

2. it says that a man physically incapable of getting an erection can contract a valid marriage. the church doesn't.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Church, true. But that doesn't mean that civil marriage is whatever the state wants it to be. Civil law is based upon natural law, and according to natural law marriage has a specific nature. And we should vehemently oppose same-sex marriage because of the threat it poses to our culture and our world. We should know better and should speak out against it.

And I've heard that a couple incapable of having sex cannot get married in the Church (although an indult is conceivable). This makes sense since the marriage covenant is consummated in conjugal union. The covenant is not ratified apart from this act and so the Church could not bless something that would not be valid. It would be like trying to use raisin bread and brandy for the Mass, it's invalid matter. Also the correct understanding of marriage is not based on individualism but is based on community and family. The vocation of marriage is a vocation to be fruitful and multiply, to raise up saints for the Church and the world and to be sanctified through spousal love and family life.