For much the same basic reason why it changed its teaching regarding slavery: because it is clearly the right, moral thing to do.
No, that would not be a good enough reason.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Priest who supports gay marriage will not submit
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
For much the same basic reason why it changed its teaching regarding slavery: because it is clearly the right, moral thing to do.
No, that would not be a good enough reason.
Smoke
Done here.
I'm under the impression that they're going to vote in the morning. We'll see how it goes. The Chamber of Deputies already approved it, and the President has said if the bill makes it to her desk, she'll sign it. So it's all up to the senators.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Luis,
But why is the RCC position on homosexuality wrong?
But why is the RCC position on homosexuality wrong?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Because oppression always is.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Storm,
But homosexuals aren't being oppressed and the RCC specifically condemns any oppression of homosexuals.
But homosexuals aren't being oppressed and the RCC specifically condemns any oppression of homosexuals.
The RCC refuses to acknowledge that what it does is oppressive to homosexuals, that much is true.
But at the same time it still refuses to recognize homosexual behavior as the fully legitimate and respectable behavior that it has always been. It hasn't even stopped calling it a sin.
But at the same time it still refuses to recognize homosexual behavior as the fully legitimate and respectable behavior that it has always been. It hasn't even stopped calling it a sin.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Luis,
How does the RCC oppress homosexuals? Specifics would be nice.
But why should it be regarded as legitimate and respectable? Simply stating it is a pretty weak argument.
How does the RCC oppress homosexuals? Specifics would be nice.
But why should it be regarded as legitimate and respectable? Simply stating it is a pretty weak argument.
Homosexuals are people. Homosexual relationships are a private matter and as such not much different from heterosexual ones. For moral purposes, they're quite equivalent.
Those are pretty basic facts, and shall be self-evident. If you don't agree, I don't think I can convince you. But they still stand on their own merits.
Those are pretty basic facts, and shall be self-evident. If you don't agree, I don't think I can convince you. But they still stand on their own merits.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Luis,
I hope you are not conflating two issues here. Homosexuality is a behavior, it is not a race or gender. Believe it or not but there are former homosexuals, but there are not former African-Americans (obviously there is gender reassignment, but you don't choose the gender you are born with).
And on a biological level the two different genders compliment each other in a way that homosexual relationships cannot; allowing for the creation of life. I think this makes it pretty obvious that heterosxual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because the creation of life is obviously superior to the inability to create life.
I think your case needs a little work. All you have is that homosexuals are people (proves nothing) and their relationships are private (also proves nothing). Somehow this is self-evident? You'll have to do better than that.
I hope you are not conflating two issues here. Homosexuality is a behavior, it is not a race or gender. Believe it or not but there are former homosexuals, but there are not former African-Americans (obviously there is gender reassignment, but you don't choose the gender you are born with).
And on a biological level the two different genders compliment each other in a way that homosexual relationships cannot; allowing for the creation of life. I think this makes it pretty obvious that heterosxual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because the creation of life is obviously superior to the inability to create life.
I think your case needs a little work. All you have is that homosexuals are people (proves nothing) and their relationships are private (also proves nothing). Somehow this is self-evident? You'll have to do better than that.
Smoke
Done here.
Same old BS. It's been answered over and over, and I'm sure you've had the opportunity to learn that it's BS. If you choose to be wilfully ignorant, that's on you. I get tired of refuting the same old tired nonsense.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Smoke,
LOL! Then refute it.
LOL! Then refute it.
Smoke
Done here.
No, seriously, Joe. You have no interest in the truth. You just choose to defend this nonsense no matter how indefensible it is. I can't educate you against your will. If you decide honesty is more important than dogma and bigotry, you can educate yourself. Maybe then it will mean something.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Smoke,
Seriously Smoke, waiting for that refutation.
And I love the tolerance of the left, you know next to nothing about me and yet you have these fantastic insights at my relation to the truth.
Preach on brother.
Seriously Smoke, waiting for that refutation.
And I love the tolerance of the left, you know next to nothing about me and yet you have these fantastic insights at my relation to the truth.
Preach on brother.
Ordeet
Member
It is oppressive, discriminatory, and in violation of the basic ideas of human rights.
Even Jesus, as Biblical legends tell us, saw the good in a dying thief and was able to forgive that man on the cross. So who are you to go around saying that someone with a different lifestyle can't be a priest?
As for your interest in the truth, Smoke is very right. You are not interested in becoming educated, because you post the same old talking points over and over. Had you really been interested in finding the refutations, you can easily do the research yourself. But no, you demand that someone else do the work for you in an attempt to derail the conversation.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Ordeet,
I disagree with all of this. The RCC teaches that you shouldn't oppress homosexuals.
Who says priests cannot be homosexual? They just cannot perform homosexual acts.
LOL! That's 2 for 2. Hopefully Luis can make it a hat trick.
I disagree with all of this. The RCC teaches that you shouldn't oppress homosexuals.
Who says priests cannot be homosexual? They just cannot perform homosexual acts.
LOL! That's 2 for 2. Hopefully Luis can make it a hat trick.
Since my assumption was correct, I'm not sure I agree with the condemnation...
No... it should not.Luis said:
Ordeet
Member
What if the government said that you can be Catholic, you just cannot perform Catholic acts? After all Catholicism is a behavior, it is not a race or gender. Believe it or not but there are former Catholics
Stop right there...
You do realise there is a difference between the government and a private organisation, correct?
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Ordeet,
First, curse the day we have a Catholic government.
Second, Catholicism is a religion you freely join or not join. Therefore, there is no connection between government and Catholicism. Governments, by definition, having a monopoly on power, the RCC does not have this (although the Vatican is its own nation-state if I am not mistaken).
First, curse the day we have a Catholic government.
Second, Catholicism is a religion you freely join or not join. Therefore, there is no connection between government and Catholicism. Governments, by definition, having a monopoly on power, the RCC does not have this (although the Vatican is its own nation-state if I am not mistaken).