|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Dear Charles,
I think the problem is that it is just one more thing to characterize us falling into the officially confused type of society that we associate with the pagans before Christ...it is one more step away from Judeo-Christian morals and ethics being a foundation for our laws. Read my post about all the children I knew who have now joined the 'life style'as young adults...
Ofcourse, so much has become relative, that sometimes we scratch our heads...but do we really need to have people's sexual practices (we are not talking about races, nationality or religion) in our face everywhere...do we need to make homosexuality, which is basically a sexual behaviour, into some kind of special category? Shouldn't it be private?
I could go on and on, but never mind. A priest I know said to a boy in his church who suddenly decided he was gay...'just fight the temptation to sin like married men fight the temptation to cheat on their wives'...ofcourse, society teaches differently, and the legalization and acceptance of 'marriage' of homosexuals seals the mentality that sexual temptation is not to be fought in any circumstance and by anyone.
Needless to say, the priest's words fell on deaf ears despite the boy having been quite religious and moral up until then--the liberal atmosphere of college absorbed him, and his confusion at a time of great distress in his life allowed for him to decide that he was gay and that he should partake in the 'lifestyle', to become a 'fait accompli'.
Also, suffice it to say that many of those in the lifestyle are generally quite promiscuous, to the point of absolute shock at what goes on in some of their social gathering spots, and I do not expect their so called 'marriages' to last too long anyway.
Alice
P.S. I am not judging these kids...I am angry at Western society and culture that imposes all this on them. It was not like that when I was young, and it was a much healthier, and much less confusing time to be growing up. No wonder they say that a majority of young people have mental health issues today...so sad! Lord have mercy on us all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Alice said: I could go on and on, but never mind. A priest I know said to a boy in his church who suddenly decided he was gay...'just fight the temptation to sin like married men fight the temptation to cheat on their wives'...ofcourse, society teaches differently, and the legalization and acceptance of 'marriage' of homosexuals seals the mentality that sexual temptation is not to be fought in any circumstance and by anyone.
Alice, I agree with you here, and that's a very good point. I just have a hard time seeing how it's the government's role to regulate something like that. We are in complete moral agreement, just perhaps we wish to go about enforcing that morality differently (I prefer the Church alone, since I don't think it's the government's area). I hope I'm describing things correctly! And although I agree with you that the homosexual lifestyle often seems shockingly, horrifyingly promiscuous, I do wonder if this is how homosexuals respond to what they perceive to be societal "persecution," that they have to be underground, so to speak, in their sexuality and therefore they have these clandestine meeting places and ways of meeting each other that in themselves promote promiscuity? This is just wondering out loud. It would be interesting to see if heterosexuals and homosexuals were on the "same playing field" if homosexuals would still be, by their very nature, more promiscuous. I don't know the answer to that. Alexis
Last edited by Logos - Alexis; 12/04/08 06:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299 |
As a Catholic I think a lot of "marriages" are not valid before God. If it were only about gays wanting to go to city hall what would I care. The big issue is what will be taught in public schools and lawsuits. Catholics can not do adoptions any longer in Senator Kennedy's state. A church has been sued and parental rights have been taken in that state as well.
By the way we are in this mess because protestants took away marriage from the church and gave it to the state.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
MrsMW said: Catholics can not do adoptions any longer in Senator Kennedy's state. A church has been sued and parental rights have been taken in that state as well. That's very disturbing. Could you enlighten us a bit more? Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
So the State could allow people to marry cows, for all I care. Hmm. In Imperial Russia, the only authority which could "grant a divorce" was the Tsar, personally. Hence divorce was quite rare, and unknown to most ordinary people. Our thrice-blessed Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sterniuk) once had a funny experience which still amused him fifty or sixty years later, when he recounted it to me. He was serving a small parish in Volyn, which had belonged to Imperial Russia but landed in Poland during the inter-war period; in Poland there was a legal process by which to obtain a civil divorce. Well, the future Metropolitan and many of his faithful attended the parish feast at a certain nearby Orthodox parish. The festivities were going fine, and there was a pleasant outdoor meal in progress, when yet another local Orthodox priest was approached somewhat noisily by a gentleman, demanding that the priest should marry a horse to a cow! The priest tried to shut him up, pointing out the obvious impossibility of the equine-bovine romance. The gentleman then yelled out in triumph "Well, Father, if you could marry my wife to that Stefan over there, you can certainly marry the horse to the cow!" l Nevertheless, the proposed nuptials did not take place. Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96 |
ALEXIS:
The Catholic Church has been forced to stop doing adoptions in Massachusetts because of a new law that forbids discrimination in the placement of children. The Catholic social service agency that was probably the largest in the state refused to place children with homosexual couples and thus incurred the wrath of the state. They were forced to stop completely the placement of children into all homes. So a great function aiding children in need was simply destroyed because of the Brave New World that Massachusetts has become. And some of the Church's opponents wanted to have civil and financial penalties imposed because the Church refused to stand down from her principles.
There is another move affoot in some places to impose similar penalties on Church-owned hospitals that refuse to perform abortions or to provide "health-care" coverage to employees that includes contraception and abortion coverage.
Again, we are not in a single issue here. It's all about defining what sort of society we are to have and in which to live. It's been called "the cluture wars" in some quarters. That's why I have continued to try to focus your question in the context of the larger picture.
What kind of civilization are we to have and what boundaries are we to have?
If we look at ecclesial structures, we can see the parallel. Those mainline ecclesial communities that have embraced every new cultural proposal that has come along have been shrinking because people instinctively know that they offer nothing to commit to or to support. Do we want our whole society to be like that?
BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 |
Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
I have a unique point of view on this subject since I was raised by a Lesbian couple, as well as the rest of my family since I am Lebanese. Many people are surprised when I tell them that I am against gay marriage. I love both of my mothers, but I have to agree that their has to be boundries.
The first thing that I would do is remove ministers from being agents of the state. As Fr. Serge can tell many of you, in Europe, you have a civil union preformed at city hall, and then you go to Church to get married. Marriage is a sacrament, and it is to the Church/Temple/Mosque to determine who can and can not get married.
Now the purpose of the State is to support society, administer justice and build a civil society.
The problem that I see, is that many of us want a nanny state. I firmly believe in Christian values and community, but that should be on the local level not the state, and definnately not national.
Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780 |
I think the answer to the original question is that words have meaning. How we think about marriage is influenced by what happens in society. If we redefine marriage then what we think about marriage will be altered. It is for that reason that the Catholic Church, and many other ecclesial communities, took a strong stance on the definition of marriage as being a union between man and woman.
As it is, Catholics have been influenced by modern society with regard to the sanctity of marriage and our divorce rate is now the same as that of non-Catholics. The approach to marriage taken by Catholic is similar to that of non-Catholics with regard to the understanding of marriage itself.
Fr. Deacon Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 74
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 74 |
Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
in Europe, you have a civil union preformed at city hall, and then you go to Church to get married. Marriage is a sacrament, and it is to the Church/Temple/Mosque to determine who can and can not get married. I heartily agree with that system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
I agree with that system, too.
Yuhannon, please don't be offended, but I'm confused. Was the "lesbian"/"Lebonese" thing a joke? Were you really raised by lesbians? How does that have anything to do with being Lebonese? I have to admit I am confused but got a laugh out of my possible misunderstanding. LOL.
Fr. Dcn. Ed,
Perhaps so, but are people justified in believing the government should discriminate based on the sex of the partners because not to do so would confuse those who apparently care not for the teachings of the Church in the first place?
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Marriage is a natural institution ordered to the common good. In the order of grace, it is a sign of Christ's love for His bride, the Church. A law purporting to recognize same sex "marriage" is contrary to the natural law and Divine law and cannot rightly be called a law. Marriage is also the foundational sacrament: And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth The union of man and woman represents the union of God with man: He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: 30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church. Same sex "marriage" is the very antithesis of what God has created and joined together. Its recognition would be the ultimate rejection of God's authority over man because homosexuality is a punishment for men who suppress the truth about God which is clearly seen from the things which He made: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.
24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them Finally, here are two documents which should be read by anyone who wants to consider the issue of same-sex "marriage" or even civil unions or "homosexual rights": http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.htmlhttp://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 320
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 320 |
Should we, then, as Catholics, work for the criminalization of divorce, since children from divorced families are being taught that "WRONG" is right?
And we're paying taxes to a government which allows the murder of the unborn. Should we stop paying taxes? Should "divorced" persons also not be allowed to adopt? What about atheists, who are teaching their children what we believe to be lies, or Jews, or Muslims, or non-Catholic Christians? How far do you draw your logic in not allowing people who set what we believe to be wrong as "right" in their children's eyes, to adopt?
[/b] For your first quest - yes we should work for the criminalization of divorce but before we do that we need to heal our selves from it and create our own 'perfect' world. over 40% of Catholic couples in the Holy Land (a fairly conservative community) undergo divorce after a few years. We have no case unless we treat the problem. Second point - we pay taxes because it is our civil duty and it is what our Christian teachings dictate we should do. It is also our civil and christian duty to vote and work so our beliefs will spread. We do not force anyone - that role was taken by some other religion - we live Christ and spread his word by living and representing what Christianity is. That also goes for sounding our honest opinion about what may become "culturally accepted" (abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, drugs etc.) and defending our stand out in the public just like that other guy out there stabbing our beliefs. In your view, if legal has nothing to do with right or wrong, then why not legalize gay "marriage"? Because of my third and fourth points. We are living in a sick society as it is. Easily allowing one more wrong issue to pass without a fight is like giving a bottle of alcohol to an addicted person saying "ahh well - he will be drunk tomorrow anyways." Laws are the mirrors of me and you - if my community allows slavery it is then my statement as a culture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Sometimes divorce is necessary for women and children to escape from abusive, even deadly circumstances. I've witnessed this with my own sister and her children. To criminalize divorce would be a mistake of colossal proportions.
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 320
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 320 |
True - each case has its individuality and its "good, bad and ugly"
We are not referring to special cases - where sometimes idealistic principles become a burden on the victim - I also have two women in my immediate family who are divorced because of ego and compatibility issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96 |
. . . are people justified in believing the government should discriminate based on the sex of the partners . . . ALEXIS: The government is not "discriminating" at all. This whole use of the rhetoric of the civil rights movement is less than honest. No one has prevented any man from marrying any woman or vice versa. That is marriage. No one is preventing people from cohabiting either, whether they are hetero- or homo-sexual. The gist of the thing is that the government has a legitimate interest in stable social units because that is the basis on which it rests. So encouraging marriage, families, and a stable environment for the next generation is in the government's interest. I'm involved in one of the cohabiting situations right now. The woman has lived with a man for 28 years. She has no standing to bury him. She will not receive his very generous pension--which she would have had if they had only been married. She has no status to stay int he residence since her name is not on it. She will be out in the street by the end of this month. The whole area of inheritance law was set up to protect her but she and the gentleman she lived with opted out. I also had a case a few months ago involving the same sex situation that is so decried. The problem was that the deceased was not divorced from her husband and he had a legitimate right to the estate regardless of the wishes of the partner who occupied the house. Now it's in the courts because there was no divorce, there was no settlement of the communal property, and the same sex partner abused a Power of Attorney to buy a new home using the first home as collateral for the loan. One big mess. I still have no answer to my basic question. What kind of society will we have and what boundaries will it have? There are no stable societies without boundaries; no stable groups without rules. And this issue is not a "basic human right." So many people have found that to be the case when they married people that their parents disapproved of and they were cut off financially and socially. Maybe another question oguht to be added. What interest does the government have in promoting living arrangements other than traditional marriage, the foundation stone of society? BOB
|
|
|
|
|
