Cardinal Dolan: The Catholic church isn't anti-gay

[ThomM]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ol...lp00000592

The church isn't anti-gay, they're just staunchly against gay marriage and think that anyone having gay sex is sinning against God.

The list goes on. The Catholic archdioceses of Boston and Washington, D.C., ended adoption programs rather than comply with laws that prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some dioceses have issued guidelines that prohibit children of same-sex partners from attending Catholic schools. Effective Catholic schoolteachers who are gay have been fired. Communion has been denied. Bishops have threatened to pull support for immigration reform if same-sex couples are recognized as families. And one prominent American Cardinal even compared LGBT activists to Ku Klux Klan members.

AS noted in religious teachings - it is NOT what you say - it is your actions that define what you are.

When Cardinal Dolan ordains an OPENLY gay priest - his words will have meaning

I will bet he never will!

[Doubting Thomas]

When Cardinal Dolan ordains an OPENLY gay priest - his words will have meaning

I will bet he never will!

I bet he won't, either, but if on the slim chance he ever does you can bet all the Catholic fundies will be running around crying that the evil government forced him to accept gays into the priesthood. Just like how they wrongly claimed that the government forced the church to end adoption services, when it was the church itself which ended them rather than comply with having to possibly place children with gay couples.

[Lek]

The way I see this issue is if we treat each other equally with respect we won't have the problems we do. I believe having homosexual sex is immoral. Heck, I believe any sexual relationship outside of marriage is immoral. That's my belief, so why hate me for that. I also disagree politically with Democrats, but I don't hate them. If we as a country feel that homosexual couples and unmarried couples are being discriminated against by the tax system or other privilege granted to married couples, then we can give them that right. But for thousands of years marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman and has been held as sacred to many. We're now changing that meaning. That's like a college saying that they are changing the definition of fraternities and saying that they're now for men and women. Women already have sororities which have equal privileges. If we're going to grant the same rights, call it something else.

[Chad32]

I think you need to read the bible again if you think the most common marriage back then was monogamy. Monogamy itsself is quite recent. The main problem is people that keep saying homosexuality is a sin, and firing people because of it and whatnot. Why can't we just make it a rule that adults should be able to do what they want, as long as everyone consents to it? Two adult men? Fine. Two adult women? Fine. A man and many women? Fine. A woman and many men? Fine.

Anyone who says the best way to help a rape victim is marrying the person off to their rapist, and allowing men to keep sex slaves as long as they refer to their kidnap victim as "wife", has no business dictating who should and shouldn't be together.

[Lek]

I think you need to read the bible again if you think the most common marriage back then was monogamy. Monogamy itsself is quite recent. The main problem is people that keep saying homosexuality is a sin, and firing people because of it and whatnot. Why can't we just make it a rule that adults should be able to do what they want, as long as everyone consents to it? Two adult men? Fine. Two adult women? Fine. A man and many women? Fine. A woman and many men? Fine.

Anyone who says the best way to help a rape victim is marrying the person off to their rapist, and allowing men to keep sex slaves as long as they refer to their kidnap victim as "wife", has no business dictating who should and shouldn't be together.

In western society monogomy goes back to shortly after time of Christ. You're right that in early bibllical times monogamy was not the majority practice, but Jesus clarified what God expected. Anyway, in our society we must allow equal rights to all. That's what our country was founded on. And, like I indicated before, I don't hate people who disagree with me.

[Jacob(smooth)]

The way I see this issue is if we treat each other equally with respect we won't have the problems we do. I believe having homosexual sex is immoral. Heck, I believe any sexual relationship outside of marriage is immoral. That's my belief, so why hate me for that. I also disagree politically with Democrats, but I don't hate them. If we as a country feel that homosexual couples and unmarried couples are being discriminated against by the tax system or other privilege granted to married couples, then we can give them that right. But for thousands of years marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman and has been held as sacred to many. We're now changing that meaning. That's like a college saying that they are changing the definition of fraternities and saying that they're now for men and women. Women already have sororities which have equal privileges. If we're going to grant the same rights, call it something else.

Respectfully, I disagree. Agreed that marriage in the USA has been synonymous with heterosexual monogamy, but it's hundreds of years not thousands. In the new Testament times it wasn't. In many parts of the world it still isn't. I agree that many people have strong views on what marriage should be, but they don't get to decide, no matter how firmly they hold those beliefs. The thing is, marriage is not Christianity's institution to defend! It predates Christianity. It exists outwith Christianity. Ergo Christianity has no moral authority to decide what gets to be defined as marriage.

---

It is clearly mentioned in the Bible, in Leviticus 18:22 which says:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Jesus also says in Matthew 5:17:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

The level of flexibility that the Church can have with respect to gay sex is defined in those 2 verses.

See its all one big misunderstanding. Leviticus is quite clear. Man should not lie with man kind as with woman kind because lieing is wrong! It's OK to do it with women, (of course your bum does not look big etc) but not with men.

I admit the wording could have been clearer...

[Lek]

Respectfully, I disagree. Agreed that marriage in the USA has been synonymous with heterosexual monogamy, but it's hundreds of years not thousands. In the new Testament times it wasn't. In many parts of the world it still isn't. I agree that many people have strong views on what marriage should be, but they don't get to decide, no matter how firmly they hold those beliefs. The thing is, marriage is not Christianity's institution to defend! It predates Christianity. It exists outwith Christianity. Ergo Christianity has no moral authority to decide what gets to be defined as marriage.
[/quote]

Marriage was defined as monogamous in western Europe long before out nation was established. Anyway, what we have is an established institution. It's not just a Christian institution, but also a secular institution which has been defined that way just the same as fraternities and sororities. I guess we a as a nation can change the definition according to how the government views it, but we're talking mutual respect here.

[Crossless2.0]

Marriage was defined as monogamous in western Europe long before out nation was established. Anyway, what we have is an established institution. It's not just a Christian institution, but also a secular institution which has been defined that way just the same as fraternities and sororities. I guess we a as a nation can change the definition according to how the government views it, but we're talking mutual respect here.

No, we're talking equal rights and protections under the law.

[Lek]

No, we're talking equal rights and protections under the law.

I agree. And we can do that without changing the difinition of marriage.

[Chad32]

I don't think we can. I believe we've tried the whole separate but equal thing before, and it didn't really work out.