|
Post by catholicxjw on Aug 15, 2005 22:42:54 GMT -5
Tell us the reasons behind the way you voted.
|
|
|
Post by evanescence on Aug 16, 2005 1:50:41 GMT -5
I voted no because the bible says not to sexual immorally.
but at the same time I feel sorry for the homosexuals, should they have the right to be married?
If the church opposes it, as the teachings say no to sexual immorally then the church can deline and say 'no' that is what the church believes.
Evanescence
|
|
|
Post by furlan1985 on Aug 16, 2005 16:41:02 GMT -5
I voted no because gay marriage is not only morally wrong but is totally unnatural. The Catholic Church condemns acts of homosexuallity, not homosexuals. While having a homosexual (or even a bisexual) orientation is not typical, it is not in itself morally wrong or sinful. Since in most cases [homosexuallity] is discerned or discovered, not freely chosen, it is not automatically blameworthy [/b](Human Sexuality, #55; Catechism, #2358). Thus the Church has taken a fairly benign or accepting stance toward homosexual persons—who discover their same-sex inclinations. Yet the Church has consistently taught that to act on these inclinations, particularly to engage in homosexual acts, is always objectively morally wrong.
Furlan
|
|
|
Post by marymagdalen on Aug 16, 2005 23:07:31 GMT -5
Even if it is true that some people are born with a homosexual orientation, God created man. From the beginning, God has condemned homosexual conduct. Thus, to me, it is clear that God does not approve of homosexual marriage. I know many gay people, some of them in committed relationships, who are wonderful people and I feel their pain deeply but I don't feel qualified to override God's judgment on this issue.
The Episcopal Bishop who was appointed despite being actively gay says that in the days of the Early Church, they didn't understand sexual orientation. Sorry. Back in the really, really Early Church, God condemned homosexual conduct (see Gen. 19:1-29). I think God understood the orientation of his creation.
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Aug 17, 2005 10:17:52 GMT -5
I had to go undecided because I agree but don't agree!
I don't agree that gay marriages should be allowed in the Christian setting - or any other religious setting where homosexuality is considered immoral.
I have no problem with gay marriages in a civil ceremony however. If they are as committed and loving to each other as a heterosexual couple, I think it's great that they are prepared to make that public commitment to one another.
There is also the legal aspect of marriage. For example, in the UK, if one partner dies but the couple aren't married, the bereaved partner has no automatic claim to the estate. Even if they are left eveything in the will, this can be contested by the family of the deceased, which I think is unfair if the two have lived together for many years and shared the purchase of property, bank accounts etc. If the couple were married however, the surviving partner automatically becomes next of kin and there is less chance of them being left with nothing. Allowing a civil ceremony would help to clarify matters like this.
|
|
Carmelitanum
Catechumen
Whoever dies in my Habit will never see the fires of hell.
Posts: 13
|
Post by Carmelitanum on Aug 20, 2005 13:11:26 GMT -5
I voted against homosexual marriage. Gay marriage is both morally and naturally sinful and repugnant according th Sacred Scripture.
The argument that homosexuals are just following there nature can be used to excuse heterosexual marital infidelity because one partner ha a higher sex drive. That partner might be following nature to cheat on his/her partner but it is still a sin. Highly sexed persons or homosexuals, either way, we must resist that which we know from the Bible and Tradition is sinful.
|
|
|
Post by hippo393 on Aug 24, 2005 2:07:26 GMT -5
Should I ever get married, I hope it's quite gay. To be fair, the interpretation of the English word "gay" has changed over time. Even 50 years ago, many movies used the word "gay" to mean cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement. I'm sure we'd ALL wish cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement to all our married friends. Knowing what this thread is intending, however, I apologize. I thought it be fit for a lesson about live languages versus "dead" languages in which no meanings of words change over time, like Latin....thus the wisdom of St. Jerome to translate the Vulgate into Latin some 1600 years ago. Brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by ishmilchamah on Aug 24, 2005 3:56:52 GMT -5
since Jesus taught us that it is not the action that is wrong but rather the thought and inclination behind the action (actions are, after all, a manifestation of the heart) then being a homosexual and not acting on it is not the answer. I don't really understand whether homosexuality is learned or genestic or anything else, and I would never condemn anyoneone who was happy in their sexual orientation if that person did not claim to have a relationship with God. However, when homosexuals demand hat God accept them as such I am more concerned. At the risk of being viewed as totally homophobic, I believe that God has laid down certain practices as incorrect for our sakes, because he alone knows what is best for us and wants us to be hapy and healthy. I also believe one can repent of being homosexual and that God will set him (or her) free from this mindset whatever its origin. The problem arrises when something is recatagorised as "all right" or accaptable so as not to upset or offend people. You cannot recatogorise sin. Yes, maybe a great many homosexuals are content in their sexuality and lifestyle, but this does not make their sexuality and lifestyle correct befoe a holy God. All it does is point to the fact that our society is devolving morality-wise and will continue to do so until Jesus returns. But supression of sin in our lives is not the answer - the answer is Jesus casting our sin as far away as the east is from the west. A living relationship with Jesus will not make us suffer sin, but be set free from it and its repecusions. That said, I know that God would never reject someone seeking him because of any sin, God just slowly works to heal and save us one bit at a time. We all of us have wrong inclinations ande mindsets, many of which we probably don't realise are even wrong until the spirit convicts us. We certainly are in no place to judge. God doesn't have a list of acceptable sin and a list of unacceptable sin, we're saved because f Jesus and his blood is effective no matter the sin, hurt, probem, illness or trauma. And Hippo393, English is my second language and I used to get quite mixed up with all the semantic shifts taking place. Very confusing sometimes. Ah well, given time I'm sure English will be quite unrecognisable to anyone under twenty-five, let alone those of us who have a mixed cultural background. I guess I'm just a bit of a sad act. Whatever one of those is?
|
|
Ana
Catechumen
Posts: 14
|
Post by Ana on Aug 24, 2005 15:37:02 GMT -5
Homosexuality is against moral and natural law, which is proven by the inability for homosexual couples to procreate. The homosexual act is intrinsically selfish. I fully support the entire Catholic stance regarding homosexuality although I am not going into full detail here.
|
|
ali
Catechumen
Posts: 7
|
Post by ali on Aug 25, 2005 7:04:23 GMT -5
Should I ever get married, I hope it's quite gay. To be fair, the interpretation of the English word "gay" has changed over time. Even 50 years ago, many movies used the word "gay" to mean cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement. I'm sure we'd ALL wish cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement to all our married friends. Knowing what this thread is intending, however, I apologize. I thought it be fit for a lesson about live languages versus "dead" languages in which no meanings of words change over time, like Latin....thus the wisdom of St. Jerome to translate the Vulgate into Latin some 1600 years ago. Brilliant! I LOL'd at this My dd went through a Nancy Drew phase (remember her?) . Her and her friends were gay quite often. Then my dss often insists things are gay when he doesn't like it. Ie. -- it is gay to get off the phone at 9pm. I quite gaily ask him what he is so happy about. ;D As a teenager, he just looks at me in disgust and gets off the phone. Hehehee Other than that, I have no real thoughts on the subject at hand. Ali
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Aug 26, 2005 14:19:45 GMT -5
Ana wrote:
The homosexual act is intrinsically selfish.
Can I ask why you say it is selfish. I do agree that it is morally wrong, but surely if the act involves two consenting adults who are sharing each others love, it is no more selfish than the heterosexual act?
Please don't smite me down mods - I'm negative enough as it is! :-)
|
|
Ana
Catechumen
Posts: 14
|
Post by Ana on Aug 26, 2005 17:20:53 GMT -5
Can I ask why you say it is selfish. I do agree that it is morally wrong, but surely if the act involves two consenting adults who are sharing each others love, it is no more selfish than the heterosexual act Heretic, Honestly, your reasoning here disturbs me. The involvement of two consenting adults does not automatically make an act selfless. When we engage in sexual acts that deny God's purpose, we are being selfish. We are saying, what God says is unimportant provided we fulfill our personal desires. This is selfishness no matter the circumstances - adultery, fornication, masturbation, or non-procreative sexual acts (heterosexual or homosexual).
|
|
|
Post by marymagdalen on Aug 26, 2005 22:33:23 GMT -5
Can I ask why you say it is selfish. I do agree that it is morally wrong, but surely if the act involves two consenting adults who are sharing each others love, it is no more selfish than the heterosexual act Heretic, Honestly, your reasoning here disturbs me. ...When we engage in sexual acts that deny God's purpose, we are being selfish. We are saying, what God says is unimportant provided we fulfill our personal desires. This is selfishness no matter the circumstances. Ana, I really like your response here in that so often we think of marriage as between two people but we forget that the Bible tells us that a threefold cord cannot be broken. The third person in the marriage is God. He has to be considered. I like to think of the Trinity as a family. You have the Father and the Son, both of whom love each other so much that the love is palpable, being the Holy Spirit. Kind of like a husband and wife loving each other so much that nine months later they have to give that love a name, as Scott Hahn says. I also think of marriage as a sort of Trinity, in that you have a husband and a wife who love each other so much that the love is palpable, being God, who is in the marriage and is Love. I don't think I expressed that very well but I think you get my meaning. Serena C.
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Aug 27, 2005 6:19:53 GMT -5
Honestly, your reasoning here disturbs me. lol ana - my reasoning sometimes even disturbs me The involvement of two consenting adults does not automatically make an act selfless. I agree with this - for example in the case of prostitution or adultery when at least one party is only satisfying their own selfish desire for something which is not rightfully theirs to have. The jury is still out on masturbation as this is a selfish act if it becomes addictive behaviour - for occasional use though, I 'blame' the One who created all our desires in the first place! For homosexual acts though, in spite of the act being against God's law because it is not for procreative purposes, there are two people whose desire is to share completely with one another. I still see no difference between this and and a married couple having the same desire to share with one another. When we engage in sexual acts that deny God's purpose, we are being selfish. Maybe this is where our wires are getting crossed. Yes we are be being selfish against God, but that doesn't mean that we are being selfish towards a partner in a loving and committed relationship. At the end of the day, it's sad but not everyone believes in God and there are many Christians too, who choose to apply God's law as they see fitting to their circumstances. You might put me in this category, lol! Marymagdalen - that analogy of the Trinity is wonderful. If I understood it right, what you said is like the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (as in the Creed) and the same way, the love of God is evident (or proceeds) from the husband and wife. And yes I'd say that a homosexual couple lack that third cord. This makes their bond weaker spiritually as they don't have God's blessing, but they can still be committed to one another.
|
|
|
Post by evanescence on Aug 27, 2005 7:28:06 GMT -5
It is never right to Sin against God. the two males or females could just be really good friends instead, doesn't need to exeed to the stage where it leads to sin.
Evanescence
|
|