Mixed messages...
Archbishop Vincent Nichols seems to have come out in favor of civil unions, while supporting Church teaching against homosexual marriage. (Really?)
We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision… As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give… - Source
In a post titled, Archbishop Backs Equality, Fr. Blake pointed out, "He did go on to say, 'equality and commitment do not amount to marriage'".
My first impression is that the Archbishop's reasoning sounds suspiciously derived from the pastoral notion that a monogamous relationship between two consenting gay adults is better than living a promiscuous life with multiple partners. It is a very permissive proposition...
That said, even if the Church were to approve civil unions - which a few other bishops have also stated that they would not oppose - it will not be enough for gay activists. Eventually - like concurrently - they will seek some sort of blessing, some sort of commitment ceremony, probably claiming Boswell's medieval studies which pretend to site precedence, and so on. Inevitably, 'equality' as Nichols esteems it, will sooner or later require recognition of same sex marriage - and acceptance of same-sex adoption. 'Equality' has become a doublespeak term - with or without the 'marriage' qualifier.
In my opinion, there is no compromise to be had that will not end in contradicting Catholic Church teaching.
BTW - Non-married couples, straight or gay have for years arranged matters legally in order to take care of their friend-companion-partner after one of them dies. Marriage or civil union contracts are not necessary.
More fallout here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePH - I didn't find that Fr. Blake was overly critical of the Archbishop. He seemed confused if anything. Fr. Blake is extremely sensitive and pastoral (in the true way, not "pastoral") when it comes to gay issues. In fact, I'd be willing to bet he personally knows couples living chastely in civil union.
ReplyDeleteTerry, I agree with you, but did you really have to link to TIA? I think that site is spiritually dangerous - I wouldn't want gullible folks exploring it and discovering new things to worry about.
In the end, they want the state to force a validly ordain Catholic priest to officiate their wedding against his will.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see the Archbishop moving in the direction of equality, democracy and civil rights. There's already marriage equality in all manner of traditionally Catholic countries from Italy to Belgium to Mexico to Brazil. In Mexico LGBT parents can even adopt children now. In MEXICO! The LGBT revolution for civil rights is coming and no one can stop it.
ReplyDeleteMercury - I was being lazy.
ReplyDeleteBadger Catholic: Huh? Your comment is complete nonsense.
ReplyDeleteReality Check: The Catechism clearly states that unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians is unacceptable. However, marriage is perhaps a step too far. From what I understand of UK law Civil unions provide all the necessary legal protection.
Mhairi: So "separate but equal", right?
ReplyDeleteMhairi: zoophiles are also discriminated against by the evil Church, as are dendrophiles. Scandalous! I hear they also do not permit unmarried young people to have sex, and husbands have to be faithful to their wives and vice-versa. Oh the horror!
ReplyDeleteOops that was meant to go to "RealityCheck" - an ironic name if I ever saw one ...
ReplyDeleteMercury: Gee, thanks, Rick Santorum. But at the end of the day animals can't consent, two adult men or two adult women can, so your analogy falls flat. And a tree can't inherit money or visit you in a hospital or get tax benefits.
ReplyDeleteAs to the last two, do you think we should criminalize pre-marital sex and adultery? Adultery, btw, also violates the consent of one party.
What business is it of yours if two loving adults want to be married to eachother under the law? Oh, thats right: you find gay sex icky and gross, and use some Bronze Age text to justify your prejudice. This is another reason more and more young people in the US are fleeing organized religion, and why it's already dead in western Europe.
And equating LGBT persons to zoophiles shows that, despite official teaching about "love the sinner, hate the sin", there's some really ingrained bigotry and hatred towards LGBT persons whipped up by the RCC.
ReplyDeleteRealityCheck - gay sex IS icky and gross. Usually the combination of blood and feces, as well as the health risks inherent in the destruction of the anal canal do it for me.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that your criterion is consent. Question: what if one person asks his lover to kill him, and the killer complies with his wishes because they "love" one another. What about those fetishists who willingly and kinkily cut off pieces of flesh and eat it? Well, it's between two consenting adults.
No, I do not think we should criminalize premarital sex - but it'd be nice if schools didn't teach kids it was okay and normal, along with all the other things they teach.
By the way, your sophomoric "Bronze Age text" argument won't work with Catholics. We don't believe gay sex is wrong because the Bible says so any more than we believe stealing or murder is wrong because the Bible says so. We believe it's wrong because it simply is from a natural law standpoint, just as drinking gasoline is.
And the Faith isn't just dead in Western Europe. Western Europe is. Or do you think a fertility rate of demographic zero (1.3) and massive influx of Muslim immigrants will keep it afloat?
And the notion of gay "marriage" makes as much sense as "dry water" or "square circles". Did you ever stop and think that the whole reason we even consider TWO as the magic number for lifelong loving relationships is because there are TWO sexes?
Really, if gay "marriage" were legalized (and it was never criminalized, it just never existed, even in societies where homosexuality was widely accepted), why stop at TWO? Why not 3 or 4? I'd like a serious answer please.
No, I did not equate "LGBT" persons to zoophiles and dendrophiles. I was pointing out other disordered sexual preferences. I have friends who are gay, and I know good people who are gay. And I still think gay sex is wrong, and I still think "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I hate the phrase LGBT - it's so indicative of a moronic and backward society that is so wealthy that it can worry about crap like whether or not someone has a gender that doesn't correspond to what they have between their legs. I take it that you use the terms "male-bodied" and "female-bodied" as well, don't you?
RE: gay sex IS icky and gross
ReplyDeleteThat's your opinion. A gay man would find having vaginal sex gross. And unprotected vaginal sex can spread disease as well.
RE: what about kinks?
Whatever gets them off! It's really non of my business.
Re: two sexes
Well, there are hermaphrodites. But even putting that aside, sex is just ONE PART of the concept of gender. There's actually a whole gender spectrum, from masculine to feminine, not just two genders. I can elaborate more if you want.
Re: polygamy
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (didn't Solomon have many wives?) but it may be to complicated for the court to handle property issues in cases of divorce in that case (not to mention child custody).
@Mercury so you've got transphobia in addition to your homophobia.
ReplyDeleteIt's so sad--more inclusive religions don't have this problem. Hindus alogn with certain Native American religions have traditionally celebrated the transgendered,and the Episcopalians even ordain transgendered priests. Very sad you feel the need to embrace discrimination instead of inclusiveness.
Hahahahahaha! TRANSPHOBIA! Did you just make that up, or is that really a word that someone thought up in one of the little post-modern queer academic soviets on gender and language theory?
ReplyDeleteI bet not even LarryD has been called "transphobic" Good heavens!
I'm sorry, your argument about vaginal sex is silly. It's not about what one FINDS gross - gay sex is an aggressive act that is destructive and dominating. And married people who have sex are not going to be spreading diseases unless they're cheating on their spouses.
Of course you believe anything done by consenting adults is kosher. So, really, what do you feel about dendrophilia? And theoretically, what if animals could consent and make consent known, why would zoophilia then be wrong?
I'd love to find your sources for Hindu and American Indian reverence for transgenderism, and the context it's understood in. I would imagine Hindus are not necessarily cool with adult gay sex - however, they do practice pederasty in many of those cultures too. They are so inclusive!
The Catholic Church is very inclusive - we accept gossipers, murderers, liars, fornicators, blasphemers, adulterers, rapists, child killers, angry people, nice people, saints, virgins, whores, men, women, children, blacks, whites, nerds, and cool people - repentance is all that is required. And for all of those people we are bound to treat them with love and compassion. But we will not call good what is not good.
@Mercury its no laughing matter, Transwomen and Transmen are murdered, harassed, abused, and disowned by their families every day because of bigotry that comes from institutions like the RCC.
ReplyDeleteAnimals can't consent by their very nature so your question is a strawman. I don't care about any philia or kink as long as its between two consenting adults--whatever gets them off is whats important.
Native Americans and the transgendered? Look up the Two-Spirit People. As for Hinduism, go look up the Hijra. Gender is more complicated and encompasses a wider spectrum than Abrahamic religions would have you believe!
And pederasty? LOL! You're a practicing Catholic, do you REALLY want to go there? Really?
And no, you don't welcome LGBT people. Human beings are *sexual beings*. You want them to lead miserable, lonely, celibate, sexually repressed lives in the closet where they can never be satisfied or fully whole by being who they are.
Oh, and anal sex within a mogonamous, loving relationship doesn't spread disease.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if its not within that context, that's what condoms are for. Oh, I forgot, you're against those. I guess the Pope thinks AIDS in Africa is bad but condoms are even worse, right?
"@Mercury its no laughing matter, Transwomen and Transmen are murdered, harassed, abused, and disowned by their families every day because of bigotry that comes from institutions like the RCC."
ReplyDeleteProve it. And yes, the fact that you use a word like "transphobia" IS a laughing matter.
There is nothing in Catholic teaching that would support such actions.
Catholic priests have raped children. It doesn't come from Catholic teaching, that's for damn sure.
As far as other cultures accepting such things - who cares? Most culture sin the world have enthusiastically supported slavery, Romans had sex with boys and killed infants, South and Meso-american Indians committed human sacrifice, Hindus burnt widows, and Muslims allow polygamy (and Ayatollah Khomeieni specifically said a man could have sex with sheep and babies).
It matters not a whit what any given culture has accepted. Or is right and wrong determined simply by "whatever gets you off"?
Hey, dude, check out which countries in Africa have lower AIDS rates. I'll give you a hint - its not the ones where condoms are given out like candy.
ReplyDeleteAnal sex within a "loving monogamous relationship" still mixes feces into the blood and destroys the physical integrity of the organs on the receiving end.
Mercury - thanks for stepping in - I've had to be offline so I haven't been following.
ReplyDeleteBTW - gay sex is 'icky' and if gay people feel the same about the conjugal act between a man and a woman, I can only imagine it is because they are sexually disordered. That's not a hateful or discriminatory thing to say either - it's reality.
@Terry Nelson--That's your opinion, people used to think two members of different races having sex was "icky", and "disordered" (and many Christians said this was part of their religious teaching!) Some still do, but interracial marriage is legal.
ReplyDeleteSee for example, church in Kentucky bans interracial couples:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/story?id=15065204
What Christians ever said that people having sex of different races was disordered or icky - okay, maybe some Protestant slavery-supporting huckersters, but I don't care what they say.
ReplyDeleteCan you name a reliable Catholic source on that opinion? We're not responsible for the teachings of "pastor of the week" in Kentucky.
Any law prohibiting interracial marriage is unjust. But there are no laws prohibiting gay marriage because it does not, and by definition, cannot exist. A government can "legalize" it in the same way it may decree that "2+2=5", or to use a real example, that Lysenko's scientific theories were anything but bogus, or that Marx's economic theories made sense - it won't make it true.
As far as this silly assertion:
"Human beings are *sexual beings*. You want them to lead miserable, lonely, celibate, sexually repressed lives in the closet where they can never be satisfied or fully whole by being who they are."
I would also like to point out that our "evil" Church also requires this of single folks who cannot find a suitable spouse, as well as of married people where one partner can no longer have sex (if one spouse is sick and beridden for along time, for example), or when one spouse abandons the marriage. No one says it's easy, and we actually believe that it cannot be done at all without prayer and grace.
Are you really going to tell me that Mother Theresa, John Paul II, St. John Bosco, Francis of Assisi, etc. were all "unfulfilled and miserable"?
Yeah, BanalityCheck, if theres one thing Catholics hate,its interracial marriage. Why, just look at what the Spanish and Portuguese did when they were in Latin America! Didn't intermarry with other races at all. Nope. No sir. Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia are apartheid states dedicated to the purity of the white race. I guess we just have to face facts.
ReplyDelete(Yes, this was shark, just making sure everyone knows this)
@Mercury you're not making any sense. Marriage is whatever the law says it is. Webster's dictionary even has "the state of being united to a person of the same sex" as its second definition of marriage now.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Are you saying that the polygamous prophets/patriarchs of the Old Testament you no doubt hold in such high esteem weren't really married?
Speaking of which:
http://tinyurl.com/3qn9ym3
Are all those not "marriage" either?
"marriage is whatever the law says it is"
ReplyDeleteWhat an idiotic statement. Yes, you can always change the words, but it doesn't change the essence. If the law says Lysenko's socialist agricultural theories are true, and the Soviet Union plans their policies on it, millions of people die anyway, because they are not true, not matter what the law says.
Even in societies where gay sex was openly practiced and celebrated, "marriage" between people of the same sex would have met with puzzled stares, since it was always recognized that the very essence of marriage was to produce and raise children. It was Christians who added the dimension of faithful love until death.
Thomas Aquinas dealt with the issue of polygamy in the Old Testament, and I am not familiar enough with his treatment to repeat it in full here. But polygamy is not against nature in the way that gay sex is. Fornication is sinful, but only because the two are not married, not because the act of sexual intercourse is itself sinful. Likewise, polygamy is wrong not because the inherent nature of the act is wrong, but because it goes against the idea of one-flesh unity.
That little propaganda graphic is not only a gross misrepresentation, but is besides the point, since Christians do not accept the validity of almost all of the arrangements mentioned. Neither do Jews.
@Mercury marriage is for producing children? What about sterile couples? What about people past the age of fertility getting married? That's OK by the RCC, right, even though they can never have kids biologically? I guess cause they don't engage in that icky, icky, icky gay sex then its a-ok. You know what that's called? Discrimination.
ReplyDelete"Doesn't change the essence"? That's your personal opinion but most would disagree, and who says there's any "essence" to marriage? It's a contract between two people who want to engage in a committed relationship under the law. What does "essence" have to do with it? It's just a legal definition.
Besides why should the RCC be shoving its version of marriage down the throat of an increasingly secular, post-Christian society? The fastest growing category of religious affiliation in the US is "NONE", and even among the religious more and more Christian denominations are embracing committed gay relationships (the Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Lutherans, and Episcopalians already have AND embraced openly LGBT priests and pastors!) It's only a matter of time until the RCC does the same.
I hope you guys are having fun. Terry, are you stoked? :)
ReplyDelete"It's a contract between two people who want to engage in a committed relationship under the law."
ReplyDeleteThis definition is something that has been introduced in the past few years and reflects nothing of reality, Mr., er, RealityCheck.
You're right, the Church has no problem with sterile couples, or couples past childbearing age, getting married and living in sexual union. But if you notice they are not doing anything that is of itself completely contrary to nature ... the forces that make them infertile are beyond their control.
Two men cannot, in essence, EVER reproduce. It's not discrimination, it's common sense.
Let other churches change their teachings, but the Catholic Church can't. She doesn't have the authority to do so. And if all the Churches empty and there are only 100 Catholics left in America, that would be unfortunate, dreadful even, but it still wouldn't lead to a change.
The Catholic Church is not interested in changing truths in order to fit in with the whims of society. Your little "gay marriage" crap has only been on people's minds for a few decades at most. Drop in the bucket, my friend.
"Its version of marriage"? Dude, "gay marriage" has not existed, ever. It never will, not matter what laws people write. 2+2=5? If you say so.
If gay marriage is impossible then why does your Church spend do much time and energy blocking gay marriage laws? It doesn't exist according to your beliefs and opinions, so who cares? Right?
ReplyDeleteMarxism is a moronic economic theory that has no basis in reality - it doesn't "exist" in that sense. Yet people believe it, and it is in the best interests of society to fight it, since widespread belief in a manifest falsehood, and indoctrination in lies is a great danger.
ReplyDeleteThe Church fights against sexual anarchy for the same reason.
You people will not be happy unless you get to teach children that gay sex is good - they're indoctrinated as young a 5 in schools across the US, Canada, and Europe.
Don't tell me you don't believe children "need" to be taught about "sexual diversity."
The fastest growing category of religious affiliation in the US is "NONE"
ReplyDeleteWatch out for Islam :-)
...and more Christian denominations are embracing committed gay relationships (the Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Lutherans, and Episcopalians already have AND embraced openly LGBT priests and pastors!)
And I guess that's why they're rapidly growing with young and vibrant members? Heh, if only the Catholic Church would conform...
Children, children -- play nice, or you'll all get coal in your Christmas stockings! Santa is watching, you know!
ReplyDeleteChloesmom
@Mercury please explain who two men or two women in a loving relationship entering into marriage harms you personally. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteRealityCheck - individual cases do not affect me personally, but a society in which marriage is simply a breakable contract between two or more persons of either sex, and sex is nothing more than whatever floats your boat - it doesn't take a genius to figure out that such a society would be unsustainable, and the effects on children especially would be terrible.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know not all heterosexual couples are good parents, blah blah blah, so you don't even need to say it.
And yes, I have already been personally affected by other "victories of sexual progress".
@Mercury the hetero divorce rate is 50%+ and you say its LGBT persons that are ruining marriage?
ReplyDeleteI think I know what really bothers members of patriarchal Abrahamic religions. It's that under those religions the male is the dominant member of the household and the female submissive. But what if a woman sees a loving same-sex male household down the street, where Karl and Larry are treating eachother as equals without all the patriarchal/gender baggage? Why, she might start to think maybe this isn't the way its supposed to be after all! That's what you and your ilk are really threatened by.
The patriarchy is dying and you're threatened.
What's your ideal society anyway? Reconquista-era Spain, perhaps?
And how about the "annulments" the RCC hands out like M&Ms to hetero couples, thus ignoring their own scripture which doesn't give an out of ANY kind for divorce and re-marriage, while denying LGBT persons the right to marry? Why so much grace and leniency to heteros, but not to gays? Why does your Church demand gays and lesbians die alone living solitary lives instead of getting the chance to make a loving home with another adult they care about?
ReplyDeleteRealityCheck, you're making some excellent points. Thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteMy own take on the Archbishop's (and Terry's) comments can be found here.
Peace,
Michael
Again, no one is denying "LGBT" persons the right to marry, because they can marry. No one denies men the right to marry other men because such a right does not exist - it's a contradiction in terms.
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe that no-fault divorce and the widespread acceptance of contraception were just as destructive to marriage and the family as "gay marriage" will be. So, no objections from me there. But just cause lots of hetero marriages are far less than ideal doesn't "prove" crap. Even if all marriages were a disaster, it wouldn't prove that "gay marriage" was remotely good or desirable.
And yes, many annulments are granted, but it simply means that many marriages are failing to be contracted in the first place. Since you obviously know nothing about how such things work, nor do you care, there's no need to go further.
And there is no "leniency to heteros": unmarried people must be chaste - and if one cannot find a suitable marriage partner, they have to "die alone". If one's spouse is no longer physically capable of sex, or if one is abandoned by a spouse, that's a another cross to bear, and admittedly a heavy one indeed. The Church does not claim that people can do these things on their own power - grace and prayer are necessary. And it's because the Church sees sexuality as something wonderful and sacred that these "restrictions" are there.
Of course, your notion that anyone deprived of their "right" to a sexual relationship of any sort whatsoever has to "die alone and in solitude" is completely ludicrous, as is attested by many people who have lived lives as singles, either voluntarily or because they never found the right person. Do you want to tell me that Mother Theresa didn't have a "full life"? Or St. Francis of Assisi?
And there are no such things as gays and heteros - those are modern, political notions that have no basis in reality. There are sexual preferences, yes, but if a guy defines his whole being on the fact that he likes penises, well, who wouldn't call that disordered?
Hey Bayly, at least this guy hates the Church and doesn't pretend he cares. He rejects Christianity entirely, doesn't try to bend it to suit him.
ReplyDeleteHis points are boilerplate nonsense.
Mercury, no matter how you try to spin it with your superstitious medieval scholarship, you ARE discriminating against gays and lesbian. If you an amendment came up on your state's ballot to ban gay marriage (gay marriage under the law) you would vote "YES", right? That's called discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid for you that gay marriage (under the law) is the wave of the future, and so is gays and lesbians coming out of the closet. The Church will either have to adapt to it like other Christian denominations did, or wither and die because modern-minded man in this post-Enlightenment society will simply reject it as out of touch and backward.
BTW, still like to know what your ideal society is. The Evangelical Protestants I argue with always talk about the 1950s--I guess fundamentalist Catholics want to go back further than that. So are we talking Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella? Charlemagne? Maybe the Dark Ages? The last especially sounds like your kind of society--the Church rules with an iron fist, dissent and unbelievers are crushed (or in the case of the Jews ghettoized), scientific inquiry stifled, the clergy all-powerful, women barefooot pregnant and in the kitchen, and gays and lesbians either in the closet or put to death (along with "fornicators" as you call them) if they're found to be practicing openly.
As for those people you listed, they were most likely asexual. That's a place on the spectrum. Celibacy is fine when its a CHOICE, but no one should be forced to be because others happen to hold an opinion that a particular kind of sexuality between two consenting adults is "disordered".
Dude, do you get your knowledge of the Church from Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet? Or is it more formidable minds like Gibbon or Russell? You obviously have no concept of history, as you regurgitate Da Vinci Code crap based on popular 19th century polemic that any serious historian would laugh at.
ReplyDeleteWhat idiot would ever want to "go back" to any one era? We live now and God gave us now.
No law would have to be on the ballot to ban gay marriage at all. It doesn't exist, and can't. So if someone tries to pass a law inventing it, as they have in other states, I'd reject it, of course. I'd also reject laws trying to change 2+2 to equal 5.
I have no doubt gay marriage is the way of the future. Can you tell me why the particular placement of something in history makes it more or less right or wrong?
The Church cannot adapt to it. It's literally impossible. So, maybe our denomination will shrink. That'd be very bad, but if everyone rejects and despises the Church, it's still there. Changing fundamental moral values in order to be trendy is not on the menu.
If modern man rejects it as out of touch and backward, that's modern man's loss.
And buddy, you just called lots of people who read and post here asexual. You called couples with a bedridden spouse asexual. And many saints were manly men indeed with strong libidos, but were not called to marriage and family life, but to serve God in other ways.
Oh, and it's not an opinion that it's disordered, like I think licorice is gross.
ReplyDeleteIt simply IS disordered, and all philosophers, doctors, and people with common sense believed that until a few decades ago.
Aristotle did, Freud did, ... only postmodern idiots like Foucault could ever dream up the crap we have shoved down our throats today.
Come on Mercury, what's your ideal society? What does it look like?
ReplyDeleteIt's right at this time in hsitory because we've decided through experience that its wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just like we found out its wrong to own other human beings, or stop women from voting, or discovered that liberal democracy works better than an absolute monarchy, or separation of Church and state is better than theocracy. Those are all "new" ideas, too.
And yes, that you find gay sex gross is just your opinion informed by cultural/religious prejudice and nothing more.
BTW, if you could, would you outlaw all forms of "artificial" birth control? Be honest. How about condoms? Sex shops and strip clubs?
ReplyDeleteWhat good purpose do strip clubs serve? Anyway, yes, if I ran a local government I'd ban sex shops and strip clubs in town. And if I ran a store I would refuse to sell condoms and artificial birth control.
ReplyDeleteHow do we know that it's wrong to DISCRIMINATE (oooooooooohhhhh!) based on sexual orientation? And what makes it morally right or wrong in your opinion? It sounds to me that you don;t believe there's such a thing as sin anyway, and that truths or relative, so why do you care what I think?
If it were up to you, would you force the states to acknowledge gay marriage, would churches have to marry gay couples, would people be allowed to call gay sex immoral in public? Would you let parents teach their children about sexual morality, or make sure kids are taught sexual libertinism in schools?
It's wrong to discriminate because all people are equal and free, and gay relationships/sex take place between two consenting adults.
ReplyDeleteWhy not outlaw artificial birth control? You said it does nothing but damage. Why not outlaw that as well as gay civil marriage?
I believe all states should recognize gay marriage. Churches could continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians, just like organizations like the Klan and Aryan Nations can discriminate against non-whites and Jews if they want to in their own little organizations. You can call gay sex immoral all you like, just like there are racists who still write articles about blacks being inferior to whites.
Children should receive proper sexual education at the appropriate age, with an opt out if their parents don't want it (I guess you think "just say no" is super-effective, just ask Bristol Palin!) But LGBT adolescents should not be allowed to be bullied or harassed whether verbally or physically anymore than we allow black children to be harassed on account of their race or immigrants on account of their national origins.
I'm sorry the Catholic Church is so weirdly obsessed with telling other people how to have sex. I guess it goes back to St. Augustine who was incredibly repressed himself.
Though honestly I think its only a matter of time before the RCC joins the Mainline Protestants in changing their position on LGBTs. Unthinkable? At one time a woman having the right to vote was unthinkable. At another time, democracy was (the Church probably didn't approve of those two things at first either, if the Vatican had their way we'd live under Catholic absolute monarchs and pay tithes to the Church by force of law).
ReplyDeleteThe Church's opinions about what forms if government are prudent and desirable don't matter. That debate never had anything to do with the essence of things.
ReplyDeleteThe Church literally cannot change its position in gay sex, or abortion, or human sacrifice, or stealing, or anything like that.
You never answered my question WHY it is wrong to discriminate. And there is a fundamental difference anyway between discriminating based on skin color and discriminating based on behavior ( no on should discriminate against someone because they have certain tendencies).
You didn't answer my question about if you want to ban gay civil marriage, then why not ban artifical birth control and condoms? Would you be in favor of outlawing them?
ReplyDeleteI can't believe how screwed up you guys are about sex. You're even more repressed than evangelicals. No wonder they have a phrase called "Catholic guilt".
Oooooooooooooooohhhhh, "Catholic guilt!"
ReplyDeleteNo one is banning gay civil marriage any more than people are banning round squares.
And gay sex isnt sex. It's masturbating in another man's anus. Oh, and it's destructive.
You can play word games all you want, but Prop 8 was about banning gay marriage.And it passed with the support of cash from the Catholic and Mormon Churches. So why aren't you in favor of the government outlawing birth control pills and condoms?
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with masturbation..oh wait, I forgot, that's a "sin" too. Of course 98% of men masturbate and the other 2% lie about it.
Who are YOU to say that the only "proper" sex is sex in a vagina with no condom and no birth control pills? Do you have any good non-religious reason to believe in this?
Uh, cause thats like, what the sexual parts are for.
ReplyDeleteSome people don't masturbate.
Anyway, Freud, Aristotle, and any writer prior to the the pervert Kinsey started falsifying data and accepting info from child molesters. The Washington Post had an article in the 1930s that was in response to the Anglican Communion's acceptance of contraception.
And you do realize that the Episcopal church and other liberal Protestant organizations ate not thriving communities, right?
"Some people don't masturbate."
ReplyDeleteROFL!! Like I said, "the other 2% lie".
Freud wasn't opposed to homosexuality:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/03/17/freud-on-homosexuality-letter-to-a-mother/
And so what? Aristotle got a lot of things wrong. That's like saying racism is OK because Thomas Jefferson believed blacks to be inferior to whites.
The Catholic Church is hardly "thriving", either, if it wasn't for Latinos you'd be bleeding membership in this country. They're the only reason your rolls show a slight increase. And I know a LOT of ex-Catholics who are Episcopalians, and homosexuality is usually the #1 reason they switch. I'm afraid you're in the same company as the Mormons, JWs, and fundy young earth creationist protestants in this matter. Actually you're worse, at least Baptists allow birth control. If everyone followed Catholic sex advice to the letter people would be getting married at 18 and women would have 10 kids by age 40.Lovely society that would be, huh?
The only religion in this country that isn't dying out is Mormonism and they only accomplish that through cult-like tactics of social isolation, spying on members, and aggressive recruiting.
You still haven't explained why in your opinion we shouldn't outlaw birth control. If you were absolute monarch of North America, would you make manufacture, posession, and use of the pill a crime? Do you want to bring back barbaric "sodomy" laws?
Seriously, lots of people don't.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers don't matter. If people leave the Church because the teachings are hard, well it's tragic but it's no reason to change.
@Mercury So, why not outlaw birth control and condoms, since you favor outlawing civil gay marriage? What's good for the goose...right? How about we outlaw divorce too? Let's force women to live with alcoholics and abusers or live with miserable marriages again or face condemnation from the Church. And what about sodomy laws?
ReplyDelete"RealityCheck", you should become a Catholic. Then truly begin to live and be fruitful.
ReplyDeleteFor an institution that is "dying out" and so not with it, the Catholic Church sure has a bug up your nose - one that ain't coming out any time soon by the looks of it.
When your joyless sociological diarrhea has fully run its course, you will come into the Catholic Church (which will never pass away) as the child of God you are.
But for right now, I can't believe how screwed up you are about sex.
Reality Check: I have to agree with Paul. Your views on sex are pretty twisted. And to be sure - there are people who do not masturbate. It is unfortunate you seem not to know such freedom.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting tried of this. Thanks, Paul.
ReplyDeleteHe obviously gets all his information in emotional appeals and talking points.
I'll just repeat it, ad nauseam - no one is "banning" gay marriage, certain folks think they are creating it, but it simply does not exist, any more than 2+2=5
Yes, divorce has brought so much light into the world. Especially one-party no fault divorce. And the sexual revolution has resulted in the deaths of 50 million children in this country alone since 1973. Good job, sexual revolution!
Europe is already dead - they've contracepted themselves out of existence, and imported truckloads of people whose religion recommends that they actually kill gays. Good job, sexual revolution!
I'm the one screwed up about sex because I'm open and celebrate it and you guys have a perfectly healthy relationship to it by being repressed and guilt-ridden over it? Wow, this is like the Twilight Zone.
ReplyDeleteStill waiting to hear if we should outlaw birth control and condoms or not. Any Roman Catholic want to say yes or no?
You don't celebrate sex - you obviously hate it, as most of you "liberated types" do.
ReplyDeleteI think it's safe to say that this discussion accomplished nothing. They never do.
ReplyDeleteMercury, you have a lot of room to talk, given that everytime there is a post about a saint you bring up your sex life- or lack thereof. I know more about what you feel comfortable doing with a woman than any of us really need to know.
RealityCheck, I agree with much of what you say, but you're wasting your time here. Not that people aren't watching and listening, they are.
Thom - you spoil sport. You wrote: "you're wasting your time here." Gosh! Can't you just let people find that out on their own. You've been here a long time now - you've seen how many people come and go - no one stays long. You and Bayly keep stealing readers from me.
ReplyDeleteWhat?
Thom, I never said my acquaintance with sexuality was normal or exemplary or healthy, did I?
ReplyDelete"You have a lot of room to talk"
What does that even mean? My own problems cannot in any way indicate that gay sex is normal or good or healthy. They just mean that lo and behold, I have problems.
Thom, why would you commend RealityCheck on his views?
ReplyDeletedaww Terry. hugs? :)
ReplyDeleteLooks like Mercury has a chronic case of CGS (Catholic Guilt Syndrome ), just as I thought.
ReplyDeleteHey, Mercury--you know whats important in your sex life? Whatever satisfies YOU, and what satisfies another adult partner. That's it, my friend. Easy, huh? Embrace it.
And then embrace hell.
ReplyDeleteThose who keep their conscience clean are alive.
Those who don't are dead - and are on their way to the second death where the fiery worm does not die.
I know the guilt issues I face are irrational.
ReplyDeletePaul, he is right that I suffer from a severely overactive scrupulosity on such issues.
However, I know the beauty and joy of the Church's actual teachings, which are really the only sane way to look at it. Any overburdening of my conscience is my own fault.
This guy has not only praised gay sex, but also masturbation, adultery, divorce, and all kinds of of things that have enriched our culture so much. And I will say again, the culture is dead, not vibrant. One need only look to Europe to see that, or to the arts - what art is there today? Lady Gaga?
Come on, Mercury, does God really care at the end of the day about how you use your sexual organs? Did he really tell you "thou shalt only have missionary position vaginal sex within marriage wherein thy wife shalt not use birth control, nor shalt thou use a condom?" Did God really say "Thou shalt not masturbate"? Would the creator of the universe issue silly commands about such petty matters?
ReplyDelete“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
ReplyDelete"The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!"
Said by God.
"And I will say again, the culture is dead, not vibrant. One need only look to Europe to see that, or to the arts - what art is there today? Lady Gaga?"
Yes, absolutely, Mercury. The consequences of our sins today are so smack in front of our faces, and we really are that blind that we don't see them!
Reality Check - where did you get the "only missionary position" crap from? Once again, you're going off of stereotypes and not reality.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, the Catholic condemnation of gay sex and masturbation, etc.is not based on any particular line from the Bible, but on Natural Law inherent in human nature. Such things as you mention do not exist in vacuum, but their widespread acceptance does have negative consequences.Even in individual lives there are negative consequences.
Mercury and Paul - you are two men on such solid ground and so very faithful - God bless you.
ReplyDelete