The Chick Fil A Flap

[TrueFaith77]

I agree that those people holding those signs are wrong and hate-filled and confused and stupid and maybe even crazy, but their search for meaning is a human impulse I cannot ridicule.

However, I think they are not only the minority in this country, but also the minority among those who oppose same-sex marriage.

The majority is likely Protestant/Evangelical. The Protestant and Enlightenment God is not the God of the Bible and the one true Catholic Church. It is an intellectual disaster that so many people conflate them--especially the so-called New Atheists who think they are arguing against true faith, when they are entering into a null discourse.

Anyway, so one must understand that all these arguments about Leviticus and the Law do not pertain to true Christianity. The Law--such as restrictions against, say, eating shellfish--served two (or three purposes): 1. To define the culture of a diasporic community 2. To serve as a sacrifice to God in the covenant (3. Shellfish might have been unhealthy/dangerous at the time and it was just good advice--I'm not an expert on this point; I do not know). However, through Jesus Christ and the sacraments (e.g., communion), there is a new Covenant, a new Community, and Jesus has taken on all the old sacrifices into his Crucifixion. In this way, he simultaneously revolutionizes and fulfills the scriptures. He makes all things new. Most famously, this is represented by the blood covenant of circumcision. St. Paul (Roman) and St. Peter (Jewish) debated whether or not circumcision was required for entry into the Christianity. Paul won this debate with the first Pope; circumcision was not required because Jesus on the cross offered the blood of the new Covenant. Consequently, all of the old law was open to reinvestigation in the light of Jesus: to be determined within the hierarchical structure of the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus himself founded. Therefore, there is no inherent hypocrisy in opposing gay marriage on Christian grounds while also happily eating shrimp.

So then why is homosexual sex a sin and gay marriage forbidden? To understand this, one must understand Biblical and Catholic conception of sexuality. Human sexuality, as we humans banished from the Garden experience it, is characterized by shame and concupiscence as a consequence of man's fallen nature. Marriage is a sacrament to contain and provide proper outlet (as expression of love) for fallen man’s sexuality. Unlike Puritanical strains of Christianity, sex is not inherently evil and it is not merely functional (for procreation) in Catholicism. However, gay sex and contraceptive sex (and sex out of wedlock) are sins because they lock out the possibility of procreation (or procreation outside of a relationship with God): which means they are done without hope, without faith in the future, without Love. In Catholicism, being gay is not a sin but gay sex is. However, sinners ought not be hated or demonized, but they should be encouraged away from sin, toward reconciliation, and, if not already baptized, evangelized. Consequently, many Catholics vote against same-sex civil marriage because you cannot actively encourage sin. Catholicism teaches compassion for the struggles of fallen man. It also, ideally, provides an outlet for fallen man. The Church assimilates gay people into the flock. History proves this: Just look at the gay men in the clergy, the lesbians among the sisters, the gay artists whose particularly affinities (and sensitivity and Difference) convey the spirit of the Church—and most radically offer in their aching beauty a tantalizing glimpse of Paradise, the chord of Desire that resonates in us all.

[ButterCookie]

I had a response typed up but y'know what, f* it. My eyes have gone funny with resentment and anger. I'm not arguing with people about this. I'm done here for a while.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by ButterCookie

I had a response typed up but y'know what, f* it. My eyes have gone funny with resentment and anger. I'm not arguing with people about this. I'm done here for a while.

Once a discussion really turns religious, I pretty much lose all interest in participating.

I don't know why anyone would want their neighbor to not have the same rights as them. Period.

If you feel this way(denial of equal rights), you're an a**hole.

[jannieC]

[TrueFaith77]

^^Not one of those addresses the argument I summarized. Thank you for proving my point.

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

^^Not one of those addresses the argument I summarized. Thank you for proving my point.

I had not read your post yet- found this and wanted to share. I can't imagine how this little flow chart proved your point, but I will go see!

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

However, gay sex and contraceptive sex (and sex out of wedlock) are sins because they lock out the possibility of procreation (or procreation outside of a relationship with God): which means they are done without hope, without faith in the future, without Love.

How does this impact couples who are infertile?

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by jannieC

How does this impact couples who are infertile?

That's what Henry VIII asked.

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

That's what Henry VIII asked.

I understand the relationship btwn Henry VIII and "infertility" but don't get the "joke." My question was serious.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I agree that those people holding those signs are wrong and hate-filled and confused and stupid and maybe even crazy, but their search for meaning is a human impulse I cannot ridicule.

However, I think they are not only the minority in this country, but also the minority among those who oppose same-sex marriage.

The majority is likely Protestant/Evangelical. The Protestant and Enlightenment God is not the God of the Bible and the one true Catholic Church. It is an intellectual disaster that so many people conflate them--especially the so-called New Atheists who think they are arguing against true faith, when they are entering into a null discourse.

Anyway, so one must understand that all these arguments about Leviticus and the Law do not pertain to true Christianity. The Law--such as restrictions against, say, eating shellfish--served two (or three purposes): 1. To define the culture of a diasporic community 2. To serve as a sacrifice to God in the covenant (3. Shellfish might have been unhealthy/dangerous at the time and it was just good advice--I'm not an expert on this point; I do not know). However, through Jesus Christ and the sacraments (e.g., communion), there is a new Covenant, a new Community, and Jesus has taken on all the old sacrifices into his Crucifixion. In this way, he simultaneously revolutionizes and fulfills the scriptures. He makes all things new. Most famously, this is represented by the blood covenant of circumcision. St. Paul (Roman) and St. Peter (Jewish) debated whether or not circumcision was required for entry into the Christianity. Paul won this debate with the first Pope; circumcision was not required because Jesus on the cross offered the blood of the new Covenant. Consequently, all of the old law was open to reinvestigation in the light of Jesus: to be determined within the hierarchical structure of the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus himself founded. Therefore, there is no inherent hypocrisy in opposing gay marriage on Christian grounds while also happily eating shrimp.

So then why is homosexual sex a sin and gay marriage forbidden? To understand this, one must understand Biblical and Catholic conception of sexuality. Human sexuality, as we humans banished from the Garden experience it, is characterized by shame and concupiscence as a consequence of man's fallen nature. Marriage is a sacrament to contain and provide proper outlet (as expression of love) for fallen man’s sexuality. Unlike Puritanical strains of Christianity, sex is not inherently evil and it is not merely functional (for procreation) in Catholicism. However, gay sex and contraceptive sex (and sex out of wedlock) are sins because they lock out the possibility of procreation (or procreation outside of a relationship with God): which means they are done without hope, without faith in the future, without Love. In Catholicism, being gay is not a sin but gay sex is. However, sinners ought not be hated or demonized, but they should be encouraged away from sin, toward reconciliation, and, if not already baptized, evangelized. Consequently, many Catholics vote against same-sex civil marriage because you cannot actively encourage sin. Catholicism teaches compassion for the struggles of fallen man. It also, ideally, provides an outlet for fallen man. The Church assimilates gay people into the flock. History proves this: Just look at the gay men in the clergy, the lesbians among the sisters, the gay artists whose particularly affinities (and sensitivity and Difference) convey the spirit of the Church—and most radically offer in their aching beauty a tantalizing glimpse of Paradise, the chord of Desire that resonates in us all.

Pardon my brevity, but my point is not coming across. This is for what I pine:

The challenge for gay people is to make the BETTER argument. However, that argument must be based on shared values: hope, faith in the future, Love. Otherwise, the arguments are Puritanical. Otherwise the arguments are in terms of money, bureaucracy, functionality. Such arguments reduce man to cogs in a machine, rather than Christianity's revolutionary perspective of each man's dignity and spiritual value. I have offered my recommendations of "gay" movies and music in which I find those values. My call--and theirs--is that their inspiration be reflected in our political discourse.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I understand the relationship btwn Henry VIII and "infertility" but don't get the "joke." My question was serious.

Sir Thomas More answered your question when Henry VIII asked it.

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Sir Thomas More answered your question when Henry VIII asked it.

Sorry, my literary background doesn't go that far. I'm aware that Sir Thomas More was in some way connected to Henry VIII (advisor?) and was deeply religious. A Google search could tell me more, but I'm too tired to do one. Why don't you just answer the question in a direct way, without referring to a history lesson?

[TrueFaith77]

I reference More so that you know the answer is not mine. And was once common knowledge (A Man For All Seasons won all the Oscars that year!--back when the movies that won were not only good, but popular too!). His answer (and I paraphrase) was: "If God wills that a child be born of such a union, then a child will be born." In other words, there is still hope even in that situation. Remember, Catholics believe in miracles. Incidentally, More was executed for that answer.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I reference More so that you know the answer is not mine. And was once common knowledge (The Man For All Seasons won all the Oscars that year!--back when the movies that won were not only good, but popular too!). His answer (and I paraphrase) was: "If God wills that a child be born of such a union, then a child will be born." In other words, there is still hope even in that situation. Remember, Catholics believe in miracles. Incidentally, More was executed for that answer.

I thought he was executed for refusing to acknowledge the marriage to Anne Boylene and to accept Henry VIII as the supreme head of the church in EnglandI will agree Thomas More was a great man and worthy of his sainthood.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I thought he was executed for refusing to acknowledge the marriage to Anne Boylene and to accept Henry VIII as the supreme head of the church in EnglandI will agree Thomas More was a great man and worthy of his sainthood.

He refused to argue for Henry VIII's divorce to the Pope. Henry VIII wanted a divorce because his wife was infertile. More refused to represent the King because he felt that infertility was not a basis for divorce, because if God wills that their union produce a son, it will. The Church of England was founded because the Pope would not permit Henry VIII to divorce and marry as many times as it took to produce a son. Either way: that was More's argument: that no child or no son was not grounds for divorce because God would provide (if it was needed).