Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

error: Post not found!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Apr 13th 2013 new
(Quote) Rachel-731570 said: I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help with explain...
(Quote) Rachel-731570 said:

I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help with explaining the Catholic stance that would be easily understood, a quick enough read most would read it, but with enough substance to not be so easily dismissed. I'd love your help. Every time I try to write it out, it gets too long and not kind-yet-firm. Please help!

--hide--


Unfortunately, they will never be able to understand the Catholic Church stance on marriage and why the church is against gay marriage, no matter how you present it to them. They do not accept the bible as the word of God either.

I have practicing Catholic friends and aquantance, who married in the church and are raising their kids Catholic, including Catholic school, who support marriage equality. That puzzles me more.
Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Josephine-586127 said: Unfortunately, they will never be able to understand the Catholic Church stance on marriage and...
(Quote) Josephine-586127 said:
Unfortunately, they will never be able to understand the Catholic Church stance on marriage and why the church is against gay marriage, no matter how you present it to them. They do not accept the bible as the word of God either.
--hide--
I have had minor success on facebook (and I mean minor), but typically more success face to face.

Here are a few long-winded tips I can think of, for what they are worth. The key seems to be undermining the common arguments for gay marriage, and drawing attention to what is actually wrong about gay marriage and what is not. I find focusing on the following is helpful to most discussions. Though many points are obvious, you would be surprised just how little some pro-gay marriage people know and think about the topic despite their zeal for their position:

1.) The Catholic position is against the act of sodomy. It is not against 2 men or 2 women loving each other (Though obvious, its often good to point out that love in no way requires sex or acts that further/contemplate it). Although the Church views homosexual inclination/temptation as a type of disorder, it does not condemn one for simply suffering such temptation and the Church recognizes we ALL suffer temptation of some sort (you would be surprised how many people don't realize this). Always make sure to point out what you are NOT against. So many people assume that the Church's position is against many things it is not, so try to correct that.

2.) Most cannot give an adequate explanation for why anything is wrong. I often point this out to someone because (from my own experience from going from a worldly moral view to a Catholic one) we all innately know sodomy is wrong like most other immoral things. Therefore, it can be very helpful to see that innate knowledge, without further reasoning, is sufficient to condemn something. Ask someone to tell you why harming another is wrong. Very few will be able to tell you anything other than 'because it is', but will still rightfully cling to that moral truth. Also, be prepared for an answer that is circular and call them out on it.

3.) Morality is objective. It is not based on the subjective consent of individuals. Many like to mention "two consenting adults" until your ears bleed, as if that is somehow de facto proof sodomy is okay. Mention situations where one or two parties are consenting to something that most anyone would still think is wrong. This demonstrates to them that morality is not based upon the consent of an individual but some objective and external standard. Also mention how that in most victim crimes both the criminal and the victim want to do something the other doesn't, yet we find one is in the wrong and the other is not despite them both acting against the other's wishes. Among other things, this demonstrates that acting against someone else's wishes is not what makes something wrong since the victim acts against the criminal's wishes that the criminal did not consent to (e.g. not giving money to the theif) but is clearly in the right. From this point they might be in a better position to appreciate objective morality. Maybe….

4.) Gay marriage is a subsidy. Since the Lawrence v. Texas case people can legally engage in such a relationship in any state of the U.S. What is being pushed for now are subsidies to promote it! You would be shocked how many so-called libertarians support gay marriage and don't think about this obvious point! Pointing this out should be enough to at least get economic libertarians to realize there is little reason to push for it. As for the rest, most will not want a subsidy unless the public good seems to outweigh the evil of the tax/spending. Point that out and have them explain the great public good that will come from this. Also point out that by supporting gay marriage you would be forcing citizens to support it through their tax dollars (since it is a subsidy after all).

Anyhow, I find half the battle is correcting all these peculiar positions rather than proving the Church’s. After all, the natural man, untampered with by the culture of this age, is more Catholic than not. Thus, I find it’s more helpful to destroy those artificial positions and misunderstandings than to offer a proof of the Church's.

Apr 13th 2013 new
Same-sex "marriage" reduces the institution to a legal contract between two persons that is not any different than a contract to buy a car or a house, or open a business for that matter.

It's a deformation of marriage that reduces it to the level of a state-sponsored welfare program for people in sexual relationships.
Apr 15th 2013 new
Here in CA, I am preparing to be forced to view gay-marriage in my hometown, due to Supreme Court decision (or indecision!).

Imagine all of the lawsuits that will happen due to gay marriage. We will be forced to acknowledge these mergers, and refer to them as "married," or face lawsuit.

If someone is or was married, we will have to ask whether he was married to a male or a female. We may even have to do that on Catholic Match.

Blinded by love
Apr 18th 2013 new

(Quote) Rachel-731570 said: I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help...
(Quote) Rachel-731570 said:

I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help with explaining the Catholic stance that would be easily understood, a quick enough read most would read it, but with enough substance to not be so easily dismissed. I'd love your help. Every time I try to write it out, it gets too long and not kind-yet-firm. Please help!

--hide--



Don't bother... It won't work.... A better approach would be to invite them to attend church or talk from a catholic traditionalist... Then, maybe... but modern society seems to think marriage is no longer marriage so I really don't what the answer is??????

Apr 18th 2013 new

(Quote) Josephine-586127 said: Unfortunately, they will never be able to understand the Catholic Church stance on marriage ...
(Quote) Josephine-586127 said:

Unfortunately, they will never be able to understand the Catholic Church stance on marriage and why the church is against gay marriage, no matter how you present it to them. They do not accept the bible as the word of God either.

I have practicing Catholic friends and aquantance, who married in the church and are raising their kids Catholic, including Catholic school, who support marriage equality. That puzzles me more.
--hide--



I don't mean to point you out... but NEVER use the term "marriage equality"... that was invented by extreme activists that thought the term "gay marriage" was not PC.... I actually prefer terms like the destruction of marriage or the reinvention of marriage or Satan's definiton or marriage... (ok probably don't use the last one even though it is true)

Apr 18th 2013 new

(Quote) Rachel-731570 said: I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help...
(Quote) Rachel-731570 said:

I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help with explaining the Catholic stance that would be easily understood, a quick enough read most would read it, but with enough substance to not be so easily dismissed. I'd love your help. Every time I try to write it out, it gets too long and not kind-yet-firm. Please help!

--hide--


[i]To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.

How can we do this to our children?

---Archbishop Salvatore Cordeleone of San Francisco

I highly recommend to read the full article of his intreview on Same Sex Marriage below.

www.usatoday.com

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Hi, Peter,I do agree that God saw that all He created was good.However,...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



Hi, Peter,

I do agree that God saw that all He created was good.

However, after the fall of Adam, all of creation which was originally ordered by God to work with him, now became inordinate to some degree or other, demanding Adam's toil to reap his livelihood from the soil. It was this prevarication of Adam which originated death (corruption) in the material realm of God's creation, spiritual and physical for humans, physical for plants and animals.

The bacterial animal previously created for the purpose in assisting man in the completion of his Due End, now works against him. I won't discuss the virus here, since it is not living matter.

Decay is merely corruption/death of a good, living member of a material being. It is not integral (i.e., contributing to the wholeness of a being); it was never meant by the Creator to happen.

It is not the laws of nature which lead to decay, but rather the physical laws of a fallen universe.

Take for example:

There is a boulder which weighs 50 lb. If the boulder is lifted to 6 feet high and then dropped, we know by the physical laws that the boulder will fall at a specific velocity until it reaches the earth, dispelling all its kinetic energy in some specific measure of force on the earth.

Now, raise the same boulder over the same spot to the same height, and place an infant's head in the spot the boulder will hit. Physical laws dictate that the boulder will fall once again with the same energy, smashing the skull of the infant with the force. However, the laws of nature dictate that we ought (an english word based upon the concept of justice) not do this, since this is not in line with the purpose of the infant's head.

Animals and plants cannot appreciate the natural or physical law, since they do not have spiritualized souls to conceptualize these things.

--hide--

Sorry for not replying sooner Chelsea, I have been busy. But here we go:


"However, after the fall of Adam, all of creation which was originally ordered by God to work with him, now became inordinate to some degree or other, demanding Adam's toil to reap his livelihood from the soil. It was this prevarication of Adam which originated death (corruption) in the material realm of God's creation, spiritual and physical for humans, physical for plants and animals.

The bacterial animal previously created for the purpose in assisting man in the completion of his Due End, now works against him. I won't discuss the virus here, since it is not living matter."


So all of a sudden man had to develop a immune system? Or did Adam and Eve get that at the same time they were clothed by God?
In what way did the bacteria all of a sudden begin to work against man? Do you have anything that supports this idea that our colon bacteria, for example, behaved in a different manner before the fall of man?

"Decay is merely corruption/death of a good, living member of a material being. It is not integral (i.e., contributing to the wholeness of a being); it was never meant by the Creator to happen."


Red blood cells for example can only do what they are supposed to do for a limited time due to wear and tear. That is why there is a constant production of those cells in our bone marrow. Do you mean this was different before the fall of man?

"It is not the laws of nature which lead to decay, but rather the physical laws of a fallen universe."


So before the fall of man there was no radioactive decay in nature? An imbalance in a atomic nuclei didn't strive to become balanced? Were chemical bonds (shared electrons) so strong that they didn't break? Were Adam and Eve indestructible? That would have to be the inevitable consequence of chemical bonds not breaking.

Did the nucleosynthesis in the sun not produce high energy photons capable of ionizing molecules on earth as well as in Adam and Eve. This ionizing effect is the cause of the carcinogenic effect of gamma-, and x-rays. Was that different then?

A proton (or a neutron for that matter)contains a vast number of quark/anti-quark pairs annihilating each other, a gazillion (a number so large that it is pointless to specify it more precisely) number of times every second. They destroy each other. Did this not happen before the fall of man?

"There is a boulder which weighs 50 lb. If the boulder is lifted to 6 feet high and then dropped, we know by the physical laws that the boulder will fall at a specific velocity until it reaches the earth, dispelling all its kinetic energy in some specific measure of force on the earth.
Now, raise the same boulder over the same spot to the same height, and place an infant's head in the spot the boulder will hit. Physical laws dictate that the boulder will fall once again with the same energy, smashing the skull of the infant with the force. However, the laws of nature dictate that we ought (an english word based upon the concept of justice) not do this, since this is not in line with the purpose of the infant's head."


The laws of nature doesn't in any way dictate anything about whether we should place an infants head in the boulders path or not. All the laws tells us is that there will be consequences if we do. Without the infant there will still be consequences. Due to the motion energy the boulder will affect anything that comes in its path. Not that it will ever actually touch anything. Neither the infants head or the ground. But that physics class can be saved for another day.

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: While I disagree with the majority of your post, merely due to semantics, which is not ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



While I disagree with the majority of your post, merely due to semantics, which is not a foundational issue: I did not start out replying to Peter with any confusion regarding Peter's position on homosexuality, so there was really nothing to realize finally in that regard.

The only problem that I had with what Peter was stating was an apparent lack of clarity in terms and conformity to Catholic doctrine regarding the creation of the world, the fall of man and all material creation, and how this applies to inordinate behavior presently observed in animals since the fall.

I personally take my cosmology from an Aristotlean standpoint, which due to its Scholastic approbation, I believe is really the only safe source of cosmology.

--hide--
Which cosmology has been brought into this discussion so far? And don't you think Copernicus updated Aristoteles cosmology significantly?

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-933860 said: Which cosmology has been brought into this discussion so far? And don't you think Copernicus ...
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:

Which cosmology has been brought into this discussion so far? And don't you think Copernicus updated Aristoteles cosmology significantly?

--hide--


Peter, cosmology is the philosophical study of beings in change, which does overlap the topic of discussion. Also, in regard to your long response to me: Were I to defer to you, what would you have me do?

Posts 121 - 130 of 158