toldailytopic: Gay marriage.

[CabinetMaker]

:squint:

So are some homosexuals deserving of the DP and others not?

Based on sexual orientation alone, none of them are deserving of death.

Extremely unwilling, yet you do advocate that the government uphold justice and punish criminals. Sounds like you've got a serious disconnect somewhere, mate.

Societies need laws lest they disintegrate into chaos. Crimes against such as murder and theft are needed to keep society operating smoothly. Traffic laws sure help but I have been in countries without traffic laws. Its a bit crazy, but traffic moves. Laws regarding sex should be limited to protecting society from sexual predators. Sexual acts between consenting adults regardless of how distasteful we may find them, fall under the purview of morals, not criminal behavior. In short, laws are required to protect us from each other. Laws cannot protect us against ourselves.

 

[Granite]

Why do you say that?

There's a unique mix of stupidity, vulgarity, and hatred that's unmistakeable.

 

[Cruciform]

Gay marriage.

The U.S. Bishops' "Between Man and Woman"
Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions

In November 2003, the U.S. bishops approved a restatement of long-held Catholic beliefs about marriage. The statement is a response to a growing movement in U.S. society to recognize homosexual unions as legal, married unions. Within a month of the bishops' meeting, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex unions can be equated with marriage. The U.S. bishops' statement, while it upholds marriage, does not condemn homosexual people. It points out, rather, the ancient and sacred character of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In the news conference releasing the document, Bishop Kevin J. Boland of Savannah, head of the bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family Life, pointed out the reasons for the document. First and foremost, the bishops realize that we are in a social debate about marriage, he said, an area about which the Church has a "core belief." The statement is meant to "draw upon reason and faith in order to identify the nature and purposes of marriage and thereby to demonstrate why a same-sex union can never be equated with marriage." That said, the statement does not attempt to be a "detailed theological treatise, public policy statement or legal argument." In fact, said Bishop Boland, "It does not even present a complete catechesis on marriage or homosexuality." In short, the bishops' statement is an attempt to introduce some key Church themes into this debate in a way that everyday people can understand. The full text of the U.S. bishops' statement follows.

Full Text of the Bishops' Statement

A growing movement today favors making those relationships commonly called same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage. This situation challenges Catholics—and all who seek the truth—to think deeply about the meaning of marriage, its purposes, and its value to individuals, families, and society. This kind of reflection, using reason and faith, is an appropriate starting point and framework for the current debate.

We, the Catholic bishops of the United States, offer here some basic truths to assist people in understanding Catholic teaching about marriage and to enable them to promote marriage and its sacredness.

[1] What is marriage?

Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605).

These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.

[2] What does our faith tell us about marriage?

Marriage comes from the loving hand of God, who fashioned both male and female in the divine image (see Gn 1:27). A man "leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body" (Gn 2:24). The man recognizes the woman as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gn 2:23). God blesses the man and woman and commands them to "be fertile and multiply" (Gn 1:28). Jesus reiterates these teachings from Genesis, saying, "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh'" (Mk 10:6-8).

These biblical passages help us to appreciate God's plan for marriage. It is an intimate union in which the spouses give themselves, as equal persons, completely and lovingly to one another. By their mutual gift of self, they cooperate with God in bringing children to life and in caring for them.

Marriage is both a natural institution and a sacred union because it is rooted in the divine plan for creation. In addition, the Church teaches that the valid marriage of baptized Christians is a sacrament—a saving reality. Jesus Christ made marriage a symbol of his love for his Church (see Eph 5:25-33). This means that a sacramental marriage lets the world see, in human terms, something of the faithful, creative, abundant, and self-emptying love of Christ. A true marriage in the Lord with his grace will bring the spouses to holiness. Their love, manifested in fidelity, passion, fertility, generosity, sacrifice, forgiveness, and healing, makes known God's love in their family, communities, and society. This Christian meaning confirms and strengthens the human value of a marital union (see CCC, nos. 1612-1617; 1641-1642).

[3] Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?

The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).

In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.

[4] Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?

For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

[5] Why is it so important to society that marriage be preserved as the exclusive union of a man and a woman?

Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.

Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.

The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.

Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.

When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

[6] Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?

It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.

To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons "be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).

[7] Should persons who live in same-sex relationships be entitled to some of the same social and economic benefits given to married couples?

The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Ultimately, the stability and flourishing of society is dependent on the stability and flourishing of healthy family life.

The legal recognition of marriage, including the benefits associated with it, is not only about personal commitment, but also about the social commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society. It would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits to those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage.

Some benefits currently sought by persons in homosexual unions can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health-care decisions in case they become incompetent.

[8] In light of the Church's teaching about the truth and beauty of marriage, what should Catholics do?

There is to be no separation between one's faith and life in either public or private realms. All Catholics should act on their beliefs with a well-formed conscience based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. They should be a community of conscience within society. By their voice and their vote, they should contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason and Gospel truth. Responsible citizenship is a virtue. Participation in the political process is a moral obligation. This is particularly urgent in light of the need to defend marriage and to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions as marriages.

Married couples themselves, by the witness of their faithful, life-giving love, are the best advocates for marriage. By their example, they are the first teachers of the next generation about the dignity of marriage and the need to uphold it. As leaders of their family—which the Second Vatican Council called a "domestic church" (Lumen Gentium, no. 11)—couples should bring their gifts as well as their needs to the larger Church. There, with the help of other couples and their pastors and collaborators, they can strengthen their commitment and sustain their sacrament over a lifetime.

Conclusion

Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.

Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.

The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.

[http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0304.asp]​

​

Also:
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_against_gay_marriage.htm

 

[madman]

Morality is not found in laws.

Then where?

 

[Ktoyou]

There's a unique mix of stupidity, vulgarity, and hatred that's unmistakable.

So, I guess you dislike SOZO?

He puts out some good theological posts.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have heard that if you circumcise your self to part of the law then you must obey the whole law (all 613 or so of them), you must keep them all perfectly and that Jesus's sacrifice is of no value to you.

Such foolishness.

The support for homosexuality to receive the death penalty has nothing to do with sin. Just as the support for murderers and rapists to receive the death penalty has nothing to do with sin. The Biblical passages you are referencing are about nothing but sin.

There is only one unforgivable sin and it ain't sex. That means that homosexuality is a forgivable sin no longer deserving of death.

To call this a non sequitur would be an understatement.

Crime is separate from sin. It is irrelevant that sin can be forgiven when speaking of crime and what should be done in regard to punishing criminal activity.

And it is fundamentally false that sins being forgivable makes them no longer deserving of death. Whether the death that is separation from God or physical death. If sins being forgivable meant they were no longer deserving of death then no one would ever die in either manner. And even if one is forgiven of their sin the idea that they no longer deserve death on account of their sin is a fallacy. To be forgiven does not mean you no longer deserve punishment, it only means the one who has the authority to punish you has pardoned you and decided not to punish you. And those who are forgiven of sin still suffer physical death, so it is clear that physical death is separated from sin in that regard.

Therefore is it clearly false that forgiveness means crime no longer deserves physical death.

So, are you willing to stone all that the old covenant says should be stoned?

All the ones that were not clearly stated to be only for Israel.

Including children? Including your children? (Yes, this is inflammatory but it is also mandatory under the old covenant.)

Which verses say to stone children?

This has nothing to do with someone's relationship with God. You are WAY off course. Nonsense. The two systems have nothing to do with one another.

Amen!

Morality is not found in laws.

Did anyone ever say they were?

The reverse is the case: laws are found in morality.

Depends. Some are deserving of the death penalty, others are not.

How do you decide? Why do you pick and choose?

But we advocate those laws. As a Christian, I live under the New Covenant so I am extremely unwilling to put people back under the Old Covenant.

Laws have nothing to do with covenants.

Based on sexual orientation alone, none of them are deserving of death.

No one ever said they were.

Societies need laws lest they disintegrate into chaos. Crimes against such as murder and theft are needed to keep society operating smoothly. Traffic laws sure help but I have been in countries without traffic laws. Its a bit crazy, but traffic moves. Laws regarding sex should be limited to protecting society from sexual predators. Sexual acts between consenting adults regardless of how distasteful we may find them, fall under the purview of morals, not criminal behavior. In short, laws are required to protect us from each other. Laws cannot protect us against ourselves.

Why do you separate law from morality? And is it your argument we should not have laws in regard to drug use?

 

[Uberpod1]

I'd marry Z man if he'd have me.

 

[Uberpod1]

Let's legalize it and move on to something more interesting and important...

Or we could add a third thread about it!! :drum:

 

[assuranceagent]

So, I guess you dislike SOZO?

He puts out some good theological posts.

Stupidity is not an attribute I would ascribe to sozo. He can get...passionate at times, but he's a far cry from stupid.

In fact, he can be one of the most insightful posters I know of on the site when it comes to matters of scripture and theology. And my experience is that he tends to match respect for respect.

I don't know if madman is really sozo or not because I haven't interacted with him enough to tell either way, but if he is, mo' betta' for it, I say. :thumb:

 

[Cracked]

In the church - not okay. Outside the church - well, that gets a bit more messy.

 

[Granite]

So, I guess you dislike SOZO?

Yes, you could say that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Then where?

In the hearts of men. I do not steel because it is illegal to do so, I so not steel because it is wrong. Society says that sex outside of marriage is acceptable. I do not cheat on my wife because it is wrong. You cannot legislate morals. Laws may be based on what society considers moral behavior, but morals define what is right and what is wrong, not what is legal and what is not.

 

[madman]

In the hearts of men. I do not steel because it is illegal to do so, I so not steel because it is wrong.

How do you know it's wrong?

Society says that sex outside of marriage is acceptable.

Some members of society say it's okay to have sex with children and animals.

I do not cheat on my wife because it is wrong.

Are you saying you do not cheat on your wife because you know it's wrong, or because it is wrong?

 

[Lighthouse]

I do not steel because it is illegal to do so, I so not steel because it is wrong.

Are you sure it's because you are not a steel smith?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Such foolishness.

The support for homosexuality to receive the death penalty has nothing to do with sin. Just as the support for murderers and rapists to receive the death penalty has nothing to do with sin. The Biblical passages you are referencing are about nothing but sin.
To call this a non sequitur would be an understatement.

Crime is separate from sin. It is irrelevant that sin can be forgiven when speaking of crime and what should be done in regard to punishing criminal activity.

And it is fundamentally false that sins being forgivable makes them no longer deserving of death. Whether the death that is separation from God or physical death. If sins being forgivable meant they were no longer deserving of death then no one would ever die in either manner. And even if one is forgiven of their sin the idea that they no longer deserve death on account of their sin is a fallacy. To be forgiven does not mean you no longer deserve punishment, it only means the one who has the authority to punish you has pardoned you and decided not to punish you. And those who are forgiven of sin still suffer physical death, so it is clear that physical death is separated from sin in that regard.

Therefore is it clearly false that forgiveness means crime no longer deserves physical death.

Under the Old Covenant, Sin and Crime were synonymous. It is only fairly recently that we have begun to "rightly divide" the law. And the only reason we have done that is because of a misinterpretation of what "rightly divide" means in the King's English.

All the ones that were not clearly stated to be only for Israel.[

More of that "rightly dividing?"

Which verses say to stone children?

Leviticus 20:9 ESV / 14 helpful votes

For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

Laws have nothing to do with covenants.

Man's laws or God's Laws?

No one ever said they were.

Madman did. Plenty of others here advocate the death penalty for homosexuals for one reason - they are homosexual.

Why do you separate law from morality? And is it your argument we should not have laws in regard to drug use?

I see morality as being higher than law. Law is the basic acceptable behavior. Morals are a higher standard that go beyond the law.

I think that the drug laws are a waste of time, money and resources. I would support decriminalizing drugs and treating them the same way we treat alcohol.

 

[Lighthouse]

Laws may be based on what society considers moral behavior, but morals define what is right and what is wrong, not what is legal and what is not.

Laws should not define morality. And morality should not be based on legality. But laws should be based on morality. Morality should define the law.

 

[madman]

You cannot legislate morals. Laws may be based on what society considers moral behavior, but morals define what is right and what is wrong, not what is legal and what is not.

This makes no sense. You legislate right and wrong to your children (at least we hope you do). Therefore, you legislate morality to your children. A person with a sound mind, and one who truly loves his neighbor, will do everything he can to have the laws consistent with those things that are right and wrong, just as you would as a parent.

 

[CabinetMaker]

How do you know it's wrong?

Some members of society say it's okay to have sex with children and animals.

Are you saying you do not cheat on your wife because you know it's wrong, or because it is wrong?

Steeling, adultery, beastuality, pedophilia, murder, drunkenness are wrong because God says they are wrong. Under the Old Covenant, I would be condemned for them. Under the New Covenant, I can be forgiven for all of these.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Are you sure it's because you are not a steel smith?

Dang. I do not steel because I am not a blacksmith. I do not steal because it is wrong.

 

[madman]

Steeling, adultery, beastuality, pedophilia, murder, drunkenness are wrong because God says they are wrong. Under the Old Covenant, I would be condemned for them. Under the New Covenant, I can be forgiven for all of these.

You've lost your mind. What does any of this have to do with the discussion?