I guess I'm not sure of the point you are making with this post. These lawsuits about marrying a pet or computer are almost universally brought by the Christian Right in the pathetic attempt to equate LGBT marital rights to marriage to inanimate objects or animals. In this hard right antagonistic mindset, Kim Davis "winning" against these absurd legal challenges somehow bolsters Davis' position denying gay marriage licenses.
Qaz, don't you mean Adam and Ed?
Yes, only those who procreate matter. No marriages between old people, or people who can't multiply, or don't want to multiply.
I think thar there are plenty of people serving the survival of the species, and that is not a behavior exclusive to marriage.
lol yes because as we know, you don't get gay people from straight people procreating.
wait so you think if we allow people who can't procreate to marry, the species won't survive?
so when did you choose to be straight? Your wee wee gets hard based on conscious choice or is it a more subconscious reaction?
It would certainly seem that the majority of America and developed global society has decided, as have the highest US court. It's just a withering minority tossing out silly legal challenges and bathroom laws... Things which aren't even really intended to truly change the cultural evolution, but really just to rally the angry masses.
Sorry, you don't get a pass. I decided early on that anal sex with a man is revulsive. It is my decision and opinion which is worth about as much as yours. This is all about decisions or, everything we do we can't help ourselves?
Sorry, my discussion has nothing to do with religion. As I said LBGT are welcome to live lives as they see fit. However, there are choices just like drugs and alcohol or does the human species not make decisions? Are we all animals with no rational thought? Theft-I cannot help myself? Ask the AMA what the majority would say? Can you cite many article why your viewpoint is the "majority?
lmao, you "decided" that you were revulsed by something? So you looked anal sex with men, sex with women, weighed the pros and cons, and then "decided" you found one repulsive and one attractive?
LMAO. So, we do not legislate morality, especially in the past on this debate? I don't have to agree with certain behavior/conduct. Like the OJ trial, I don't have to agree with it just accept it. I don't believe the majority agree with these decisions either, that's ok. BTW, many of my black friends are turned of by the turning of this into a civil rights issue-skin color that has nothing to do with behavior. Are there many physical health reasons not to OK this lifestyle? Disease, emotional etc? It is not OK to voice oppostion or does that make me a horrible person?
being gay has zero to do with morality. Come on into the 21st Century. And homophobia isn't limited to white people.
do all gay men just happen to suffer from fear boners? that must be it.
Isn't heterophobia also a problem? I am happy to let people do whatever they want but, I also am allowed my opinion on conduct and behavior. Perhaps we will allow men to shower with women and women with men, go all the way. Why not? After all, it doesn't harm anyone does it? Nothing wrong with it?
No choice? Like alcoholism? I can't help myself? How about DeBlasio's wife (NYC mayor) who went from lesbian to heterosexual marriage. That was not choice? I have read that kleptomaniacs (shoplifters) have no choice. I don't buy that. MAYBE there is a pre-disposition to some behaviors but, ALL involve choice. Look, I have LBGT friends. They also know I don't approve of the lifestyle and I leave it at that. I don't look down of them, I don't hate them.
Your second point is ineffective because he believes it is a sickness like alcoholism which he directly mentioned or pedophilia which he didn't but I have no doubt he believes. So even if it isn't a choice to have those feelings it's still wrong and you should avoid just like a paedophile should or an alcoholic should abstain from alcohol. Allows him to do the whole judgment thing.
Your Pope seems pretty gay-friendly these days.
LOL...yeah, he's a real maverick...except nothing he's said is new or has changed any Church teaching on homosexuality. Probably why these folks aren't that impressed with his "gay-friendliness."
two young adults having sex on a Saturday night is still considered sinful by the CC if they are unmarried, but I agree with you that the move is towards making homosexuality about as "sinful" as that is which is to say, while the official word is it's bad, the unofficial evolution is towards, no one cares. All churches have evolved on a lot of things over the decades and centuries. Some Christians used the Bible to legitimize slavery, the Mormons used it plus their own teachings to legitimize AAs as being blighted by God. Or the subordination of women to men, etc. But thankfully, modernization has made those thoughts less prevalent, although still present.
I'm impressed with his gay-friendliness. And yeah, saying "who am I to judge" gay people is definitely new. And gird your loins KB but I strongly suspect Church teachings in fact will change, and possibly within your lifetime. Because the youth all around the world reject the idea that being gay or "doing gay things" is a sin, and unless the Church "evolves" they are going to lose ground. The more liberal Protestant churches have already gotten on-board with that. The rest will get there eventually.
That's right, the Catholic Church in its 2,000+ years is well known for taking opinion polls to set Church doctrine. And no, Catholic Church teaching won't change during my lifetime or anyone else's lifetime. Now, it's certainly possible that there could be a schism. But, the Church of Rome will always be around because Jesus promised, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
Actually you make some good points. Alcoholism has been called sickness as well as pedophilia-who knows, society make make it OK in it's eyes someday. And, yes, you can have choices on whether to participate even if EXTREMELY difficult, or are we all animals and no control of ourselves or do we just make bad decisions? On judgement there is some distinction. We use it everyday discerning matters. It is opinion even though you and I try to decide what is right. Judging whether one should be jailed, punished, action made legal etc is left to others. It is not my job.
Are you really making the argument that the Catholic Church never changes? Wow. I didn't say anything about opinion polls. I said that just like any other entity the Catholic Church kinda wants adherents, and given the OVERWHELMINGLY pro-gay attitudes of millennials not in just this country but elsewhere, and the likelihood that their children will also have those attitudes, the CC will either adopt those attitudes to some extent (as Pope Francis clearly has begun to do) or they become more and more irrelevant. I'm banking on the CC being a reasonable entity that wants to increase/maintain their relevance, not decline it, particularly for something that doesn't even rate much of a mention in the NT.
Well based on his response above, he seems more intrigued by your second point lol
peter means stone, Peter and rock would have been interchangeable. Hell is not hell, but hades, and the having the "gates of hades" would certainly not have meant the catholic hell. Catholics have gone way out of their way to pervert this line to make it look like christ only sanctioned peter to be his "church" starter. There's also nothing about it lasting forever and ever, only that nothing would stop it from being built, which already happened.
That's your understanding. But, please don't be insulted if I don't accept your biblical scholarship over 2,000 years of Church teaching.
