Seriously, I don't go looking for crap like this, it comes to me. To tell you the truth, I did not read it all simply because I avoid reading bible scripture fairy tales whenever possible and don't really understand any of it anyway, but I thought I would attach the the link here for you to make up your own mind if you could be even bothered to read it too.
What caught my eye in the first place was in the web address: christendom homosex
The article is nothing more than the usual intellectual masturbation indulged in, mostly by the catholic church and its representatives, who have variously riffed on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and the inability for gay or Lesbian couples to have children without assistance ... to which my response is a resounding "So F**ING What?!?"
The fact remains that in the 21st century, marriage is a Civil Contract, which may or may not have a religious element to it, depending on the participants involved in the contract. The last I looked, no one is demanding nor having any expectation that the RC church recognize same-sex marriages. That church (or any other) will go its own way on this issue and good riddance. The primary issue at hand here is the LEGAL recognition of same-sex marriages and therewith the endowment of the many legal rights and privileges which accompany that recognition.
If there are believing same-sex couples who wish their churches to endorse their marriages, that's their headache to tackle. Our focus should be on removing a religious bias from a civil function.
Why the fuck do catholics think that everyone else has to follow their rules. What next - everyone will have to sexually abuse children, like the priests do? We live in a society that is not run by the catholic church, and they have no right whatsoever to dictate to noncatholics. As for catholics, if they want to subject themselves to the rules set forth by their corrupt church hierarchy, they are welcome to it. The past year, it seems like catholics are becoming more aggressive at wanting to dictate to noncatholics. They do not have that right.
This is what I can never understand, the hypocrisy. Child abuse ok, 'homosex' no!
I think it's time for people to start calling out catholic priests, bishops, archbishops as antiAmerican. They want to create a theocracy and are assaulting American democracy. The fact, that a vast conspiracy of men in dresses who molest children, are trying to dictate law in the country, is very alarming.
The thing is, SB, they USED to have the power, and they've finally woken up to the fact that not only don't they have the same influence they used to, but that despite their best efforts, their power continues to wane. Certainly, there are those who will continue to cling to the catholic church because they have become dependent past any chance of escape. Those of us who have gotten free, regardless from which branch of myth, need to tell not just the catholic priests but all those in similar positions that theirs is a losing battle.
At some level, they KNOW they are lying to themselves. Repeat the message enough times and they may actually develop the cojones to admit it to someone other than just themselves and act on that.
This pertains to the Roman Catholic Church, which could actually be considered an offshoot of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, with complete schism between them in app. the year 1050. So there was a ceremony that was given in the early church (eastern branch, but before the full break] to join 2 men together. Called aposteosis [sp] or something similar. It was considered a spiritual bonding, as it were, but knowing humans, at times something more? Still the point is, learn your history. The early church spiritually bonded men, a form of homosexuality? Quite some debate about this. After this split, the teaching of sex for procreation became more common in the church. So what about people who couldn't/wouldn't have children? Often wondered about that. Were they sinning? Cause I just feel, in my little heart, they were having sex. Just call it intuition.
If these priests could confine themselves to what christianity is supposed to be about, loving all, feeding the hungry, doing unto others, etc., this nonsense would not rear its ugly little head.
And yes, Loren, I agree that marriage is a civil contract. But I think history shows it has been, and mostly is a civil contract at all times. That's not to say love or even religion doesn't have a part in this, but I think only a small part until the Roman Catholic church made it one of the sacrements. Didn't start out as one. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser. Well, some of my thoughts and musings on this topic. Peace.
Tony, your part about feeding the hungry is spot on. The Catholic Magisterium seems interested only in increasing the numbers of poor, unfeedable, unhousable children, and adults in various forms of persecution and suffering. If we allow the dignity and comfort of pair bonding among people who were formerly persecuted, that would reduce suffering and therefore is anticatholic.