Priest who supports gay marriage will not submit

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi meth,

I wonder how you imagine that to be impossible for a gay relationship

It's not possible because under the RCC's teachings the gay relationship simply cannot even conduct the comeplete self-giving marital act.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Hi meth,



It's not possible because under the RCC's teachings the gay relationship simply cannot even conduct the comeplete self-giving marital act.

What can't be given? What is non-existent?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Wannabe,

This statement goes against my personal experience. I have known gay couples that have had much more loving long term relationships then some husband and wife team. They adopted kids and were giving members of there communities. I have worked with drunk straight couples who have had their kids taken from them by child protective services. They were nothing but leaches on our society.

Your point is neither universal or logical.

Just because there are poor heterosexual marriages out there proves nothing.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Father,

Again, how is it "unique" between a husband and wife? What magical force-field prevents this aforementioned coming together between two people who are in love yet happen to be of the same gender?

For one, the biological make-up of the act is unique. That marital act is unique and for many thousands of years people seemed to believe that humans were specially made to do that act in a special relationship.

This giving of one part to another part to become one cannot happen physically in a same-sex act.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

This is not oppressive or discriminatory because nobody is forcing them to be a Catholic.

I would tend to agree. People should have the right to join any group, religious or not. As long as they dont get government funds and obey the laws of society at large.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hi Father,



For one, the biological make-up of the act is unique. That marital act is unique and for many thousands of years people seemed to believe that humans were specially made to do that act in a special relationship.

This giving of one part to another part to become one cannot happen physically in a same-sex act.

You're just taking yourself around in circles, son.

 

[methylatedghosts]

This giving of one part to another part to become one cannot happen physically in a same-sex act.

10 days ago I certainly experienced otherwise...

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Meth,

What can't be given? What is non-existent?

The different biological parts that complement each other cannot be given to each other in the marital act if it is a same-sex act. When these come together it produces a sacred moment. And this moment cannot be produced by a same-sex act.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Hi Meth,



The different biological parts that complement each other cannot be given to each other in the marital act if it is a same-sex act. When these come together it produces a sacred moment. And this moment cannot be produced by a same-sex act.

See my above post

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Father,

You're just taking yourself around in circles, son.

Well, if the unique complimentary nature of the marital act cannot be grasped by you, then so be it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Meth,

Saw that, LOL!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Hi Wannabe,

Just because there are poor heterosexual marriages out there proves nothing.

It proves that your statement is false that heterosexual relationships are uniquely more self giving then gay ones.

The uniquness of the friendship between the husband and wife is there and that is why it is the only relationship that can have sexual intercourse. And even if this does not produce life the character of the relationship of complete self-giving and a communion of life is still intact.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Hi Meth,

Saw that, LOL!

It's true though!

I'm not understanding how you think that hetero relationships have something that other relationships do not!
Gay relationships can be equally loving, equally giving, equally special, equally sacred.

 

[LuisDantas]

For one, the biological make-up of the act is unique. That marital act is unique and for many thousands of years people seemed to believe that humans were specially made to do that act in a special relationship.

A loving couple (or group) is by definition a special relationship, so that belief turns out to be correct. But it has nothing to do with either homosexuality or heterosexuality, for it applies equally well to both.

This giving of one part to another part to become one cannot happen physically in a same-sex act.

By that line, homosexual sex either does not exist or is not pleasurable. Funny how much evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Duck]

I disagree with all of this. The RCC teaches that you shouldn't oppress homosexuals.

And yet, the RCC and its leadership continues to call the desire of homosexual couples to make health care decisions for one another a more grave threat to humanity than environmental destruction. The RCC leadership continues to blame its problem with covering up for and abetting pedophiles on homosexuals. The RCC and its organizations would rather not provide any aid to the weak, destitute, poor, and orphaned than risk acknowledging a secular union between two homosexuals. The RCC continues to work to strip homosexuals of secular and civil rights.

How are these behaviors and statements NOT oppressive?

 

[Duck]

Well, obviously as Catholics we are called to love. And we love homosexuals and the Church teaches that they should never be oppressed or discriminated against. But we are also called to minister to homosexuals because homosexual acts are disordered acts according to the Church. Now, this is a delicate issue. Homosexuals will feel attacked and hated, but that is where we try to bring the heart of Jesus to them. We also are not homophobic, I'm not afraid of homosexuals. My uncle is gay, I love him. We had his surprise 50th birthday party at a gay bar in Milwaukee.

You "love your Uncle" but feel that he is inherently disordered. Technically unable to be a member of your church. You feel that he and his partner (assuming he has one) should not be able to inherit each other's property without excessive taxation. You feel that he and his partner shouldn't be allowed to make healthcare decisions for each other in the event that one is hospitalized. You feel that his partner should have to pay more in taxes to account for the "income" of your Uncle's employee health care coverage. You feel that he and his partner should not recieve the other 1000 federal benefits and responsibilities associated with the word "marriage" simply because they can't pump out more babies to tithe to the Pope. But you "love" him. Riiiiiiight.

 

[Duck]

How so? What variables make the love between a same sex couple somehow less genuine than the love between an opposite sex couple?

Snotlings.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

There's been a lot of discussion here lately about whether Islam can be reconciled to a secular society. A more important concern for us in the West might be whether the Roman Catholic and LDS churches can be reconciled to a secular society.

I would expand that to say "Christianity", but the question you ask is spot on. A great question, really, that deserves to be debated on a national stage.

That's correct. He supports marriage equality for civil purposes; he doesn't support same-sex marriage in the church.

I agree with the priest, but I'm sure that the archbishop (and the Catholic church as an institution) that is going after him will stop at nothing to ensure his removal from their midst.

 

[Duck]

I would expand that to say "Christianity", but the question you ask is spot on. A great question, really, that deserves to be debated on a national stage.

I agree with the priest, but I'm sure that the archbishop (and the Catholic church as an institution) that is going after him will stop at nothing to ensure his removal from their midst.

That is the truth. The RCC and for that matter the LDS church both are under the impression that marriage is strictly a religious institution, particularly here in the USA (I am not sure if Argentina has a provisio for marriage that falls outside churches -- are you just as married if you go to the local city hall and fill out the paperwork? Anyone know the answer for Argentina?). When the government, regardless of country, became involved in what is and isn't a marriage (marriage license -- you aren't married without one, regardless of the pomp, the ceremony, and no matter who blesses the ceremony {common law marriages and states are an exception admittedly}) and started granting rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities to that institution {both common law and licensed marriages} then it pretty much ceased to be a religious institution. Since it isn't a religious institution {even with common law marriage, it is the STATE regulating marriage, not the church} then churches and church organizations should keep their mouths shut about it. Churches and church organizations don't involve themselves in other purely secular institutions, so why should they be involved in this?

 

[Smoke]

I am not sure if Argentina has a provisio for marriage that falls outside churches -- are you just as married if you go to the local city hall and fill out the paperwork? Anyone know the answer for Argentina?

Yes, you are. In fact, you must be have a civil marriage for it to be legal. Couples are, of course, free to have a religious ceremony in addition to the civil registration, but the religious ceremony has no legal effect.