I've decided I'm gonna approach Doomer about a civil union and see if the University Club will let me be included on his membership.

InItToWinIt is asking fair questions. They get to the bigger issue of Christianity. "Judging" is part of being Christian.

 

If the Catholic church does not want to recognize married gays as being married in the Church then I am cool with that despite me saying they should allowed to be married in the eyes of the government.

 

No one is more guilty of being a "Cafeteria Catholic" than me. It's a struggle but , by definition, Catholics should be in line with the Vatican. Otherwise, you're non-denomenational which is why we've seen such a huge growth in churches such as Vineyard.

 

Keep on challenging us, InIt. We need it.

I've decided I'm gonna approach Doomer about a civil union and see if the University Club will let me be included on his membership.

 

That would make Doomer a bigamist. There's laws against that.

That would make Doomer a bigamist. There's laws against that.

 

But for how much longer?

But for how much longer?

 

I just don't buy that whole slippery slope logic.

I just don't buy that whole slippery slope logic.

 

I do. Why is it such a stretch that if the definition of marriage can be fundamentally changed to include same sex people that it couldn't also be changed to include polygamy? I'm fairly certain that the people that argued for interracial marriage rights NEVER thought that their arguments would be used to legitimize same sex marriage.

InItToWinIt is asking fair questions. They get to the bigger issue of Christianity. "Judging" is part of being Christian.

 

If the Catholic church does not want to recognize married gays as being married in the Church then I am cool with that despite me saying they should allowed to be married in the eyes of the government.

 

No one is more guilty of being a "Cafeteria Catholic" than me. It's a struggle but , by definition, Catholics should be in line with the Vatican. Otherwise, you're non-denomenational which is why we've seen such a huge growth in churches such as Vineyard.

 

Keep on challenging us, InIt. We need it.

I'm right there with you, Clyde. InIt's posts are correct and in line with the Catholic Church's teachings. Don't shoot the messenger. Whether you agree with what he is saying or not, I applaud his steadfast courage to keep on keeping on.

I don't disagree with InIttowinit's position, as it relates to the Catholic church. But even still, there are tons of Catholics who are divorced and remarried without having obtained an annulment. I still contend that if one uses the argument that legalizing same sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage, it is (at best) disingenuous to ignore the persistent problem of marriages that dissolve and then the parties remarry without the proper dispensation of their first marriage by the Church. I was taught that unless you obtain an annulment, any future marriage is invalid, and you are guilty of the sin of adultery. To my way of thinking, adultery is every bit as much a grave sin as same sex marriage, if you're looking at it strictly from a theological perspective (according to the Catholic Church).

 

What makes it SO tough for me is to see the hypocrisy of divorce and remarriage by heterosexual couples accepted within the Catholic Community, yet I know gay couples who have been together decades and even raised (or are raising children) in loving, committed relationships and homes being cast as more sinful than the heterosexual remarried individuals.

 

This is where I cannot reconcile the teachings of the Church with the realities I see every day.

 

I have no problem with the challenge of the argument. I have a problem with only applying the teachings of the Church to select "sins".

That would make Doomer a bigamist. There's laws against that.

Then we will move to Utah.

I don't disagree with InIttowinit's position, as it relates to the Catholic church. But even still, there are tons of Catholics who are divorced and remarried without having obtained an annulment. I still contend that if one uses the argument that legalizing same sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage, it is (at best) disingenuous to ignore the persistent problem of marriages that dissolve and then the parties remarry without the proper dispensation of their first marriage by the Church. I was taught that unless you obtain an annulment, any future marriage is invalid, and you are guilty of the sin of adultery. To my way of thinking, adultery is every bit as much a grave sin as same sex marriage, if you're looking at it strictly from a theological perspective (according to the Catholic Church).

 

What makes it SO tough for me is to see the hypocrisy of divorce and remarriage by heterosexual couples accepted within the Catholic Community, yet I know gay couples who have been together decades and even raised (or are raising children) in loving, committed relationships and homes being cast as more sinful than the heterosexual remarried individuals.

 

This is where I cannot reconcile the teachings of the Church with the realities I see every day.

 

I have no problem with the challenge of the argument. I have a problem with only applying the teachings of the Church to select "sins".

 

To the bolded part:

 

Wouldn't adultery be whole bunches more? "Thou shalt not gay marry" is not a commandment, unless the Evangelicals have been taking liberty with Moses' translations. Or was it on the third tablet that Moses dropped and broke in "History of the World, Part I?"

To the bolded part:

 

Wouldn't adultery be whole bunches more? "Thou shalt not gay marry" is not a commandment, unless the Evangelicals have been taking liberty with Moses' translations. Or was it on the third tablet that Moses dropped and broke in "History of the World, Part I?"

 

Definitely a good point. I would also point out that without annulment, one would be guilty of bigamy if remarried.

I don't disagree with InIttowinit's position, as it relates to the Catholic church. But even still, there are tons of Catholics who are divorced and remarried without having obtained an annulment. I still contend that if one uses the argument that legalizing same sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage, it is (at best) disingenuous to ignore the persistent problem of marriages that dissolve and then the parties remarry without the proper dispensation of their first marriage by the Church. I was taught that unless you obtain an annulment, any future marriage is invalid, and you are guilty of the sin of adultery. To my way of thinking, adultery is every bit as much a grave sin as same sex marriage, if you're looking at it strictly from a theological perspective (according to the Catholic Church).

 

What makes it SO tough for me is to see the hypocrisy of divorce and remarriage by heterosexual couples accepted within the Catholic Community, yet I know gay couples who have been together decades and even raised (or are raising children) in loving, committed relationships and homes being cast as more sinful than the heterosexual remarried individuals.

 

This is where I cannot reconcile the teachings of the Church with the realities I see every day.

 

I have no problem with the challenge of the argument. I have a problem with only applying the teachings of the Church to select "sins".

 

If there's a God, I'm sure that he'd be proud of Rockmom for taking that mind that he gave to her and using it for its intended purpose of thinking, and also probably wishes that others could learn a little something from her by opening their minds up and giving that thinking thing a whirl as well.

 

Not sure that he'd be too impressed with some who merely puppet his often misunderstood and misrepresented intentions that have been deluded throughout time by self-righteous humans claiming to echo the so called truths that through slight of hand have been altered for the sake of their own self-serving agendas.

 

I don't think that Rockmom is claiming to know all as some others so arrogantly do, but at least she is willing to look at reality and measure it along side of questionable claimed to be indisputable dogma that often doesn't quite seem to hold water.

 

Are any of us truly capable of knowing all?

 

No.

 

Are all of us willing to admit this human limitation?

 

Apparently not.

 

This is just a humble opinion that is coming from an individual not afraid to admit his human limitations, but still confident enough that he's capable of seeing the difference between reality and utter nonsense.

I started to realize at around the age of 15 that for me being gay was actually a blessing. It prompted me at an early age to take a closer look at society and religion who often claimed to have all the answers, when it was quite apparent to me that they did not.

 

When some have no reason to challenge or question so called truths, they can be easily lead to believe everything that is handed to them as gold.

 

The false information and misunderstandings that I witnessed early on woke me up to reality in the nick of time before indoctrination had the chance to possess my mind and compromise my ability to think and discern.

 

It gave me the opportunity to recognize that if purported truths had such shaky foundations, then I had been fair warned to keep my eyes wide open, and it's been a treasured lesson that has followed me throughout my days.

 

It opened up my senses, and because of, thankfully I can smell bull crap from a mile away.

 

I also truly admire straight people who were still able to develop this same type of keen sense even though they weren't presented with any out of the ordinary pressing challenges that forced them to do so.

I do not disagree with any of you. I too have become more "Cafeteria Catholic" when it comes to the gay marriage issue. I accept it, I'm not going to judge. However, I do realize that it is not in line with the Catholic Church, therefore I am not in line with the Catholic Church.

 

I do love the Catholic Church. But convincing Pope Fran to change it is not something that I have the energy to do. At least not today.

I don't disagree with InIttowinit's position, as it relates to the Catholic church. But even still, there are tons of Catholics who are divorced and remarried without having obtained an annulment. I still contend that if one uses the argument that legalizing same sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage, it is (at best) disingenuous to ignore the persistent problem of marriages that dissolve and then the parties remarry without the proper dispensation of their first marriage by the Church. I was taught that unless you obtain an annulment, any future marriage is invalid, and you are guilty of the sin of adultery. To my way of thinking, adultery is every bit as much a grave sin as same sex marriage, if you're looking at it strictly from a theological perspective (according to the Catholic Church).

 

What makes it SO tough for me is to see the hypocrisy of divorce and remarriage by heterosexual couples accepted within the Catholic Community, yet I know gay couples who have been together decades and even raised (or are raising children) in loving, committed relationships and homes being cast as more sinful than the heterosexual remarried individuals.

 

This is where I cannot reconcile the teachings of the Church with the realities I see every day.

 

I have no problem with the challenge of the argument. I have a problem with only applying the teachings of the Church to select "sins".

 

This is a very good post. In fact, it was my understanding (I could be wrong) that the Church has come out and said that divorced-then-remarried Catholics cannot receive the Eucharist. However, many of them still do, and, as has been said, its not a big deal any more.

 

IMO the increasingly commonality of divorce has brought the sanctity of marriage down far enough to the point where we have this thread. I'm not old enough to have noticed a "change" in the meaning of marriage throughout my life, but a quick google search shows that in the US it has been steadily increasing. So maybe the sanctity of marriage is so far damaged from divorce, that other types of marriage are able to become more and more normal since supporters of the alternative types seem to have a valid point when saying "50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, so obviously marriage between a man and a woman is not a sacred or strong thing at all."

 

JMO.

 

 

Regarding the "accepted by the Catholic Community," I think its important to note (Not that you said differently) that Catholics are called to accept all people.