God and Gay Marriage

Quote: Evenbob

It's the same argument, you know.
Blacks (Gays) are different than Whites (straights),
and for that reason we can't let them play
on the same teams (let Gays get married and
call it by the same name).

I tired calling my dog by a different name and
he was still the same dog. Imagine that.

I don't know how often I have to say it blacks, gays, whites, straight what is the major difference? There is none. Why can't they play the same game and on the same teams? They can. What you are saying has no bearing on what I have been talking about. Just stop and think about what you are writing before you embarrass yourself with stuff we all agree with already. It is our gender not our race, or creed, or sexual orientation that makes a real difference in who we are.

Dog spelled backwards is God. Imagine that.

Quote: FrGamble

Just stop and think about what you are writing before you embarrass yourself

Embarrass myself? I'm not the one who thinks
calling Gay marriage by another name makes
it something other than marriage. The more
you talk, the more it becomes obvious there
is no god, there's just the Churches shifting
opinion of who god is.

You know what I've decided that if the state wants to call same-sex unions marriage they can go ahead and do that, actually I guess they already have. It doesn't alter the Church's teaching at all and I like the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony better anyway.

Quote: FrGamble

You know what I've decided that if the state wants to call same-sex unions marriage they can go ahead and do that,

Considering that's what they are, and all. Very
magnanimous of you, your Eminence..

Quote: FrGamble

You know what I've decided that if the state wants to call same-sex unions marriage they can go ahead and do that, actually I guess they already have. It doesn't alter the Church's teaching at all and I like the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony better anyway.

This is an important point. The government may recognize same sex unions as marriage. The Church has no obligation to. Fine. I won't argue with that. In fact, if the Church decides not to allow mixed-race marriages inside their chapel, that's fine with me too. If the Church decides not to let Catholics marry Jews inside their chapels, I have no problem with that. As far as I am concerned, the Church is welcome to bannish atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, sluts, and anyone else from getting married inside the walls of their pristine chapel. (Jesus was a Jew and his best friends were prostitutes, but I digress.) I'm cool with that.

What I'm not cool with is the Church endorsing Prop 8, funding Prop 8, encouraging parishioners to vote for Prop 8. What I'm not cool with is the Church lobbying governments to ban same sex marriage. What I'm not cool with is the Church funding or supporting lawsuits opposing same sex marriage.

The Church has its own definition of marriage. The government has its own definition of marriage. There's no reason those two definitions need to be identical. But the self-righteous Church thinks the Catholic definition of marriage should apply to everyone. It shouldn't.

Quote: reno

But the self-righteous Church thinks the Catholic definition of marriage should apply to everyone. It shouldn't.

You've got it half right. The Church thinks EVERYTHING
they teach applies to everyone. The Crusades and the
various Inquisitions were a testament to that. Thank
Allah those days are long gone, nobody is forcibly
converted anymore. Can you imagine what that must
have been like? These self righteous, ego centered men
coming to your small town and forcing their stupid
religion on you?

Quote: reno

The Church has its own definition of marriage. The government has its own definition of marriage. There's no reason those two definitions need to be identical. But the self-righteous Church thinks the Catholic definition of marriage should apply to everyone. It shouldn't.

I appreciate the support of religious freedom in the beginning of your post but why did you stop? You seemed to be on a roll, the Church can do anything it wants inside its walls, but once it steps outside you have a problem. What you seem to be saying is that you support the freedom of religious worship but your support for the free exercise of religion is a little shaky. It sounds like you are saying, "practice your religion, but don't live it out in the public sphere."

Is the Church any more self-righteous to think that marriage is a loving, stable, union of a man and a woman than you are to say that it shouldn't apply to everyone? The Church believes it has a vision that is good for society and the world and wants to share it. You think differently. Then share your vision don't just try to silence the Church. Religion has a right to speak just as much as you do.

Quote: Evenbob

You've got it half right.

You've got it all wrong.

The crusades and the inquisition were not about forcing Catholicism on people. It has always been a consistent teaching of the Church that you can't force people to believe in anything. I know we have talked about this before, why do you remain willfully ignorant?

Quote: reno

But the self-righteous Church thinks the Catholic definition of marriage should apply to everyone. It shouldn't.

Oh, no. They don't think it should. They are certain it actually does.

This is why a certain member of this forum is completely baffled by any disagreement with his doctrine. The church is, after all, in possession of the absolute truth, as handed down by God (Gods??) No one could possibly really doubt it. It's THE Truth with a capital "T."

BTW, it can be very amusing, if also pitiful, when this certainty meets ignorance. I've known devout Catholics who told me that 1) the Old testament was written by the Catholic church around the fifth century CE to appeal to the heathen Jews and 2) one guy who thought Jews and Muslims were "wrong" (just that, "wrong;" not wrong about something) because their worship of Jesus is not sincere! You should have seen his face when I told him Jews and Muslims don't worship Jesus. He refused to believe me.

This is also why the Good Father often claims pre-Judeo-Christian religions are all actually proto-Christian religions. Everyoen really "feels" there is only one three-part god, but they often can't understand it. So the partial revelation of Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Spirit gets misinterpreted into "I must sacrifice people at the altar of the Chac-Mool."

Marriage is just one part of all this.

Quote: FrGamble

Is the Church any more self-righteous to think that marriage is a loving, stable, union of a man and a woman than you are to say that it shouldn't apply to everyone? The Church believes it has a vision that is good for society and the world and wants to share it. You think differently. Then share your vision don't just try to silence the Church. Religion has a right to speak just as much as you do.

If your Church want to tell your parishioners that homosexuality is a sin, that's your Church's business. But once you affect public policy, you end up denying rights to other citizens. The list of spousal benefits is extraordinarily long, and some of those benefits are very very important.

Here's a hypothetical thought experiment: suppose the Catholic Church had a long standing tradition of not allowing interracial wedding ceremonies at the Church. Now suppose that the Church lobbied the government to prohibit interracial couples from getting married at any church, temple, or synagogue. If a liberal Jewish synagogue allows interracial marriage, and the Catholic Church lobbies the government to ban all interracial marriages, you are trespassing upon the religious freedoms of that liberal Jewish synagogue. What goes on at that synagogue is none of your business; it's their business. Leave them alone, and don't harrass the synagogue to adhere to your Catholic values. Likewise, if the rabbi at a liberal Jewish synagogue allows 2 lesbians to wed, don't try to amend the State of California's Constitution to prevent the rabbi from performing the wedding. You're interfering in the relgious freedom of that rabbi. (Prop 8 was an amendment to California's Constitution.)

To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never formally been opposed to interracial marriage (correct me if I'm wrong.) But for over a century, the Mormons prohibited blacks from entering the Temples. The Mormon Church eventually changed their tune in 1978, but they did it out of embarrassment; there was no government interference with their religious freedom to discriminate against blacks.