• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Gay Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I'm thinking it's not quite that simple:

It is that simple. It is the position in the current Catholic Catechism:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

The key terms are "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively disordered". The first means they are a moral evil, the latter means they lead to a moral evil, but aren't exactly evil in and of themselves.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

tomBitonti

Adventurer
It is that simple. It is the position in the current Catholic Catechism:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

The key terms are "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively disordered". The first means they are a moral evil, the latter means they lead to a moral evil, but aren't exactly evil in and of themselves.

I accept that that is taught, but, it doesn't match what I remember from my grade school catechism. Say:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm

Murder

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sisterb c will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’d is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery

27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

I find it hard to fit the quoted position with the quote from Matthew.

But, I'm working from a small sample set, from a small rural church, and from forty years ago. And there is a difference between "think" and "feel", maybe that's tripping me up. Or maybe, the church has not entirely consistent views.

Thx!

TomB
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Of all the pro-decision political cartoons I've seen, I think this one nails it:

gay-marriage-ruling-cartoon-fitzsimmons.jpg

Freaking iconic, IMHO. I'm straight, but I'd have to strongly consider buying a hat or T-shirt bearing that image.
 

Janx

Hero
Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.

Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.

polygamy also reduces the available women to date headcount (yeah, I know a woman could aruably have 10 husbands by we all know it never works out that way).

That in turn means that the rich guys get a harem, and everybody else is stuck alone because there's not enough women to go around (they only account for 50% of the population).
 

Bullgrit

Adventurer
Apparently there are some folks afraid that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings, against their principles. I have noticed that no one has been correcting or contradicting that fear.

And I note that there is now at least a little precedence for this fear -- telling a private bakery that they must accept and fulfill a cake order for a gay wedding, against the owner's/baker's principles.

As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles. Is it possible that churches can be forced to perform gay weddings? Why, or why not?

*****

I find the idea that "love" won this legal argument a bit troublesome. This suggests that the judges decided based on emotion rather than legal reasoning. I'd prefer that this won because it is legally right and sound within our laws, instead of it won because someone's heart grew three sizes that day. Does this make me a bad person?

Bullgrit
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Apparently there are some folks afraid that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings, against their principles. I have noticed that no one has been correcting or contradicting that fear.

Aside from plenty of non-FoxNews commentators or theBlaze? I suggest you get out more.

And I note that there is now at least a little precedence for this fear -- telling a private bakery that they must accept and fulfill a cake order for a gay wedding, against the owner's/baker's principles.

As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles. Is it possible that churches can be forced to perform gay weddings? Why, or why not?

There's a significant difference between being a religious organization and being a vendor that serves the public. If you're selling to the public, you have to sell to the whole public. Religious organizations have never been under that assumption. Refer back to the thread on Gen Con's letter to the governor of Indiana. Gen Con Takes a Stand for Inclusiveness
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
We the People are stupid. We could stop this entire argument by getting governmen the hell out of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution. Non-religious people shouldn't even have a horse in the race, but they want a piece of the pie the government shouldn't even be handing out. Why do two people lying about "to death do us part" deserve a cash handout for it? The more people getting "married" the more taxes we all pay to make up the difference. Want to get married? Get your religious institution of choice to perform the ceremony and keep everyone else the hell out of your bedroom. The problem is not and has not ever been wether or not gays can marry. The problem is why ANYONE has to ask permission from Washington to do so.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles.

If someone's principles include discrimination, I'm pretty OK with forcing them to do something against their principles. You can't refuse to serve someone because they're black, after all, not matter how strongly you feel about it. This is very much a good thing; if someone won't do the right thing, society makes them do it.

One of the agreements you (as in the generic you) make with society when you start a business is that you'll follow all the restrictions and responsibilities that society attaches to that endeavour. You'll pay your taxes, you'll not engage in anti-competitive behaviour, you won't discriminate against protected classes, and so on. Nobody necessarily wants to do all these things, but they have to if they want to operate a business. I'm really OK with that.
 


Bullgrit

Adventurer
Aside from plenty of non-FoxNews commentators or theBlaze? I suggest you get out more.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page8#ixzz3eSZ2e7Mv
See, this attitude and dismissal is what makes me dislike asking questions. In fact, my observation and question comes from seeing a short blurb on a TV network morning news show (not Fox, but not sure if ABC, NBC, or CBS) and listening to NPR half an hour this morning on my drive to work.

Bullgrit
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top