Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 14:33:59
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
jasper76 wrote:suggesting that homosexuals are incapable of falling in love with people of the same sex
No. As explained ITT -- the present Catholic teaching about homosexuality focuses on sex acts. There is no consideration of love. The midpoint report discussed ITT suggests a refocus on relationship. Indeed, there is some consideration paid to love in that langauge: the report acknowledges that a homosexual relationship can provide "precious support" to the partners. Something similar happened to the way the Church talked about marriage in the 1960s. Before, the line was always that marriage was for procreation. But in the 60s, the Church started to talk about how marriage was also about loving companionship and support. So we are actually talking about something pretty significant and not just lip service.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 14:34:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 14:36:43
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
cincydooley wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:
As insulting as suggesting that a person is going to hell, is sinful, unnatural and is not loved by their god because of who they love?
It has absolutely nothing to do with love. Never has. Never will.
I was asking cinceydooley what he meant by this.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 14:42:27
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
jasper76 wrote: cincydooley wrote:As insulting as suggesting that a person is going to hell, is sinful, unnatural and is not loved by their god because of who they love?
It has absolutely nothing to do with love. Never has. Never will.
Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are incapable of falling in love with people of the same sex, or something else?
Not at all.
I'm saying there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what is actually the sin in the eyes of the catechism.
The sin has never been about love.
Hell, equal rights for homosexuals has nothing to do with love. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote: jasper76 wrote:suggesting that homosexuals are incapable of falling in love with people of the same sex
No.
As explained ITT -- the present Catholic teaching about homosexuality focuses on sex acts. There is no consideration of love.
Yeup. Exactly.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 14:43:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 14:47:29
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Some people view sex acts as the physical expression of love.
IIRC, most Catholics do.
I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
That's why this seems like lip service to an outsider, at least to me. If I put myself in the shoes of a homosexual Catholic, I am still not allowed to marry my partner withing the Church, and the act of expressing love for my partner physically is still seen as sinful.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 14:51:34
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
jasper76 wrote:
That's why this seems like lip service to an outsider, at least to me. If I put myself in the shoes of a homosexual Catholic, I am still not allowed to marry my partner withing the Church, and the act of expressing love for my partner physically is still seen as sinful.
One of the primary covenants of matrimony is procreation. Homosexuals cannot pro-create with one another.
Additionally, this was covered earlier in the thread. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:Some people view sex acts as the physical expression of love.
IIRC, most Catholics do.
You're not quite right there. Sex to create new life is the physical expression of love in the Catholic Church. That's why it's against married couples using contraception.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 14:53:06
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 14:53:59
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
cincydooley wrote: jasper76 wrote:
That's why this seems like lip service to an outsider, at least to me. If I put myself in the shoes of a homosexual Catholic, I am still not allowed to marry my partner withing the Church, and the act of expressing love for my partner physically is still seen as sinful.
One of the primary covenants of matrimony is procreation. Homosexuals cannot pro-create with one another.
Additionally, this was covered earlier in the thread.
So when science is able to combine DNA of two same-sex partners, which seems likely to happen, will gay marriage be given the green light by the RCC?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 14:57:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 14:58:59
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
jasper76 wrote:
So when science is able to splice and combine DNA of two same-sex partners (probably coming within the decade), will gay marriage be given the green light by the RCC?
Since the RC believes the most direct path to truth is via a marriage between science and faith, I guess it's hypothetically possible. But I Doubt it.
But then again, were my wife and not able to conceive naturally, we were going to adopt, because we both think if nature (not God) made it so one of us could bear children, then there's probably a reason. We never considered going through all the fertility treatments.
To elaborate on the previous: the potential for unhealthy babies or multiple babies is SIGNIFICANTLY higher due to fertility treatments/IVF.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:00:50
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:02:25
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
So if its doubtful that the RCC will shift its position, even if it becomes possible for a same sex couple to procreate, is the issue here really about procreation, or something else?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:05:23
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
jasper76 wrote:So if its doubtful that the RCC will shift its position, even if it becomes possible for a same sex couple to procreate, is the issue here really about procreation, or something else?
Same sex couples can't naturally procreate. I think it's as simple as that.
And yes, the issue is about procreation when it comes to sex in general. Which I answered before, and which was already discussed earlier in the thread.
And, as both Manchu and I have already explained, has NOTHING to do with love.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:05:30
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God
Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways
|
Manchu wrote:I guess first up, it really would help if you learned about the religion you are so passionate about hating. Knowledge does tend to get in the way of hatred, of course. And I'm kind of staggered by the logic of your rationalizations: something you don't know about and refuse to learn more about offends you so that makes it okay to post offensive things about it? So, homosexal acts being sinful and "inherently disordered" doesn't more or less cover people being hated, unnatural and sinful because of their sexual orientation? Not to mention the large groundswell to which you have noted of "conservative" Catholics and "most Catholics living in cultures where progressive attitudes... are very unpopular" being very much against any action which would in any way make being gay OK (either at all or within the RCC)? As to all this business about PR -- did you even bother to read my post? Did you read mine? The parts where I was specifically referencing the West? Where I mentioned your own comments about people carrying on with carrying on, using their religious beliefs to reinforce whatever it is they want to do while ignoring the bits that don't match up? Finally, church attendance in the US and Europe has not decline because the Church has not kept up with the sea change in attitudes toward homosexuals that has occurred in the last ten years. For one thing, the decline started more than a decade ago. For another thing, such a significant change in social behavior (1950s mass attendance compared to today) cannot be explained by ahistorical reference to a single political issue. Who mentioned a single political issue? Society has, as you note, changed significantly in the last 100 years, even more so in the last 60 or so. For far more reasons than attitudes towards homosexuality. A larger proportion of people in the West are falling out of religion, or never getting started with it to begin with (amplified as this year's church missers bring up next year's church never visiters  ). In short, this report is not going to make anyone who has stopped going to Sunday mass or who has never attended suddenly start going. Not suggesting it will. But how can I be surprised that all bets are off concerning logic and reason? I mean, here's the structure of the thread so far: A: this is just lip service B: no it is not because X, Y, and Z reasons C: this is just lip service B: again, no, here are the reasons why it is not A: this is clearly just lip service More akin to: A: So, nothing will actually change even if they change A, B, C? B: No, it is really big! They are saying X, Y, Z! A: Erm... but they will still be treating homosexuals exactly the same? B: X, Y, Z! Were you not listening! A: Yes, they are very nice platitudes, but saying X, Y, Z and then following through to change A, B, C will still mean 1, 2, 3 continue? And so therefore effectively nothing will have changed? B: XYZXYZXYZXYZXYZ! LEARN ABOUT RELIGION! Edit: Fixed quotes
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:05:53
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:06:24
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
cincydooley wrote: jasper76 wrote:So if its doubtful that the RCC will shift its position, even if it becomes possible for a same sex couple to procreate, is the issue here really about procreation, or something else?
Same sex couples can't naturally procreate. I think it's as simple as that.
And yes, the issue is about procreation when it comes to sex in general. Which I answered before, and which was already discussed earlier in the thread.
And, as both Manchu and I have already explained, has NOTHING to do with love.
OK, I won't press the issue further.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:07:01
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
jasper76 wrote:I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
No they don't. You might want to read up on the experiences of asexual people.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:08:10
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
What issue are you trying to press?
I mean, I think I've supplied pretty rational answers to everything you've asked.
Maybe I'm just confused at what you're looking for. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote: jasper76 wrote:I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
No they don't. You might want to read up on the experiences of asexual people.
Not only that, but I can pretty much guarantee you that there are plenty of people having sex out there where it has absolutely nothing to do with love.
And then there's married couples....
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:09:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:11:42
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Manchu wrote: jasper76 wrote:I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
No they don't. You might want to read up on the experiences of asexual people.
I can tell you that with my wife, sex is a physical expression of love. I assume that homosexuals have the same or similar experience wih their partners, or are capable of having the same or similar experience with their partners.
If someone does not have sex, such as an 'asexual', obviously sex is not the physical expression of love, because they don't have sex.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:12:02
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
SilverMK2 wrote:Did you read mine? The parts where I was specifically referencing the West?
Seriously? You even quoted my response to those parts: Manchu wrote:Finally, church attendance in the US and Europe has not decline because the Church has not kept up with the sea change in attitudes toward homosexuals that has occurred in the last ten years. For one thing, the decline started more than a decade ago. For another thing, such a significant change in social behavior (1950s mass attendance compared to today) cannot be explained by ahistorical reference to a single political issue. In short, this report is not going to make anyone who has stopped going to Sunday mass or who has never attended suddenly start going.
Although you show every sign of simply trolling the thread, I have made the effort to address your points. But I think I will just have to ignore you now, considering you accuse me of not reading your posts while also specifically quoting me responding to your posts. It is clear that you are here to advocate hate and that you have no interest in anything about Catholicism. As I posted yesterday, facts or no facts, you have already made up your mind. I guess you have proved me right in that instance and wrong as far as continuing to engage you. jasper76 wrote:If someone does not have sex, such as an 'asexual', obviously sex is not the physical expression of love, because they don't have sex.
Yep that is exactly the point: sex acts and romantic love are not the same thing.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:19:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:15:33
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
cincydooley wrote:
What issue are you trying to press?
I mean, I think I've supplied pretty rational answers to everything you've asked.
Maybe I'm just confused at what you're looking for.
I'd asked if it became possible for homosexual couples to procreate, if that would cause the RCC to approve of gay marriages. You answered it was hypothetically possible, but probably not.
So if the opposition to gay marriage would not cease if and when it becomes possible for homosexuals to procreate, than lack of procreation cannot be the only reason for the opposition,a nd I wonder what the remaining reasons are.
I'm backing off, because none of us is fortune tellers. For all we know, the Pope could wake up tomorrow, and issue an infallible Chruch declaration that gay marriage is sanctioned and sanctified by the RCC.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:15:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:17:46
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
jasper76 wrote:For all we know, the Pope could wake up tomorrow, and issue an infallible Chruch declaration that gay marriage is sanctioned and sanctified by the RCC.
He could try. It would fail.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:19:06
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Manchu wrote: jasper76 wrote:If someone does not have sex, such as an 'asexual', obviously sex is not the physical expression of love, because they don't have sex.
Yep that is exactly the point: sex acts and romantic love are not the same thing.
I didn't mean to imply that they are synonymous. I understand that both can exist without the other. However, for many people, sex acts are a form of physical expression of love.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:20:46
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
jasper76 wrote:
I'd asked if it became possible for homosexual couples to procreate, if that would cause the RCC to approve of gay marriages. You answered it was hypothetically possible, but probably not.
So if the opposition to gay marriage would not cease if and when it becomes possible for homosexuals to procreate, than lack of procreation cannot be the only reason for the opposition,a nd I wonder what the remaining reasons are.
I'm backing off, because none of us is fortune tellers. For all we know, the Pope could wake up tomorrow, and issue an infallible Chruch declaration that gay marriage is sanctioned and sanctified by the RCC.
They're not going to change the sacrament of Matrimony. One of the primary covenants one embraces with matrimony is procreation. Homosexuals cannot procreate.
BUT, as I've already said in this thread, the Church could revise its stance on dispensations to include homosexuals. They already do for infertile couples and divorcees.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:23:13
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
jasper76 wrote:However, for many people, sex acts are a form of physical expression of love.
Sure but so what? For some people, whipping is a physical expression of love. Just considered by itself, however, whipping someone is not the same thing as love. If you only focus on the act of whipping, you are only talking about violence. But if instead you take a look at the context -- the human relationship -- maybe you can begin to see that there is love there even if that kind of thing is not something you are into or totally understand. And in honesty, there is no power on earth that can. cincydooley wrote:as I've already said in this thread, the Church could revise its stance on dispensations to include homosexuals
I totally disagree. You cannot dispense with the sex of the spouses.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:27:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:30:50
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Manchu wrote:But if instead you take a look at the context -- the human relationship -- maybe you can begin to see that there is love there even if that kind of thing is not something you are into or totally understand.
I'm not confused about or questioning my own position. I believe homosexuals should be able to marry. I also believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with consensual homosexual sex, and that suggesting to homosexuals that homosexual sex acts are sinful is tantamount to psychological abuse.
This is at the core of why I, and perhaps others, believe this is little more than lip service.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:31:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:32:28
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
Manchu wrote: cincydooley wrote:as I've already said in this thread, the Church could revise its stance on dispensations to include homosexuals
I totally disagree. You cannot dispense with the sex of the spouses.
I see where you're making that distinction, in that matrimony explicitly states that it's between a man and a woman.
That would have to change in order for a dispensation about non-procreation to allow for homosexual unions. Automatically Appended Next Post:
For equal protection under the law, right?
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:41:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:47:03
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God
Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways
|
Manchu 618863 7280657 7067bbd5e570bbad967a4dcda5a174a3.png]Seriously? You even quoted my response to those parts:
And you handily cut out my reply to the points you made.
Although you show every sign of simply trolling the thread, I have made the effort to address your points.
You have repeated the same things again and again, which do nothing to address what is being discussed.
I very much understand that there are some very technical doctrinal issues on the table for discussion, and I understand that the changes will have some impact on the way certain groups are treated by the rcc... my points have been that the changes being talked about possibly discussing at some point are, in practical terms, almost exactly the same as if no change had been made (assuming the changes go through - do not want to forget your point about the vast majority of rcs living in less progressive cultures!).
It is clear that you are here to advocate hate
Mkay...
and that you have no interest in anything about Catholicism. As I posted yesterday, facts or no facts, you have already made up your mind.
Because I said I expected little to change even if there is a positive outcome from the matters under discussion?
As you have repeatedly stated, a lot of catholics and priests, in all sorts of places around the world, are against any kind of this kind of change. And as I mentioned earlier (to which you replied that my point made no sense) - I have absolutely zero input in the discussion that the pope and selected others will have to decide the direction of the church. My lack of belief in the ability of the rcc to become more inclusive has no relation to whether change will occur.
And again, as I mentioned, if things do change, i will be happy to give the nod on a step down the path to loving ypur fellow man... while still hoping for bigger changes, as well as an opening of the church to outside investigation and punishment of those involved in the recent and not so recent abuses, as well as other issues that it is too tedious to type out on my phone.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:50:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:49:58
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Right, for equal protection under the law. I also believe that if the RCC, or any church for that matter, doesn't want to officiate same-sex marriages, they should not be compelled to do so.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:51:50
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
jasper76 wrote:I also believe that if the RCC, or any church for that matter, doesn't want to officiate same-sex marriages, they should not be compelled to do so.
So ... what's the issue then?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 15:55:48
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
So its not about love. Cool. Glad we got that straight. It's about equal protection under the law.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 16:01:17
Subject: Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
cincydooley wrote:
So its not about love. Cool. Glad we got that straight. It's about equal protection under the law.
Right, my personal position is fundamentally about law and not love. Inasmuch as I think the Catholic Church should accept gay people for who they are AND what they tend to do, and add homosexual marriages in their 'circle of sanctification', or whatever, it is only because I feel sorry for and support those homosexuals who for whatever reason want to get married within the Catholic Church, and I feel sorry for the children of such people because they are taught that there is something wrong with their parents, when there is really nothing wrong with their parents.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 16:01:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 16:03:14
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
So you think other people should change their religious tradition because you feel sorry about a hypothetical scenario?
Did it ever occur to you that this might be a bit presumptuous?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/15 16:07:17
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Manchu wrote:So you think other people should change their religious tradition because you feel sorry about a hypothetical scenario?
Did it ever occur to you that this might be a bit presumptuous?
Yes to both, I suppose. I don't think religious traditions deserve any kind of exemption whatsoever from criticism, and if I see something I perceive to be unjust or abusive going on, I don't feel any need to stay quiet about it.
I also realize that many people believe their religious traditions should be free from criticism, and that such criticism may be considered by such people as presumptuous.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/16 08:09:09
Subject: Re:Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
jasper76 wrote:
Yes to both, I suppose. I don't think religious traditions deserve any kind of exemption whatsoever from criticism, and if I see something I perceive to be unjust or abusive going on.
What's unjust or abusive about it? No one is forced to be Catholic.
Catholic doctrine has no bearing on their legal protection.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|