Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Proteus_MST]

And that's why Catholics are required to disclose these things and failure to disclose is grounds for annulment. You've got it precisely right!
...

But they also aren't allowed to marry firstplace, isn't it?
I.e. if a man and a woman come to a catholic church and want to arrange for a wedding ...
and tell the priest beforehand: "By the way, muy future wifey has a surgical sterilisation and I have a vasectomy"
then the catholic priest will have to tell them that they cannotg marry according to the catholic ritus, isn't it?

[Ben Kenobi]

What if I said I use hormones? Would you cite your bible against me lol? You truly are pathetic.

What about hormones? The Catholic church opposes them for the same rationale that it does unnecessary medical treatments. They have a legitimate medical use - to replace hormones lost through age.

[Giancarlo]

What about hormones? The Catholic church opposes them for the same rationale that it does unnecessary medical treatments. They have a legitimate medical use - to replace hormones lost through age.

You missed the point. The Catholic church opposes a lot of stuff.. Doesn't really make the opposition valid. They don't oppose priests diddling kids.

I'm talking about female hormones by the way.

[Ben Kenobi]

But they also aren't allowed to marry firstplace, isn't it?
I.e. if a man and a woman come to a catholic church and want to arrange for a wedding ...
and tell the priest beforehand: "By the way, muy future wifey has a surgical sterilisation and I have a vasectomy"
then the catholic priest will have to tell them that they cannotg marry according to the catholic ritus, isn't it?

Let me check that to be certain that I'm getting it correct here.

It is not an impediment to marriage if disclosed beforehand to the Church and to the other partner. Reversals are not mandatory either, but are encouraged if the couple are within the age of childbearing. You'd also have to go to confession if you've been sterilized to repent.

[Giancarlo]

The Catholic Church has no authority and no legitimacy. That is my primary argument. They cannot make demands on government to follow their will.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't really make the opposition valid

Using medications for a purpose they are not intended for is bad.

[Giancarlo]

Using medications for a purpose they are not intended for is bad.

You don't get it, do you? You know nothing about gender fluid people.

Using the bible against people is bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

Apparently they like helicopters.

I'm talking about female hormones by the way.

There's a shocker.

[Giancarlo]

Apparently they like helicopters.

Oh yes. The Catholic Church does. They helped the Argentinian military junta in tossing people into the ocean. Doing the work of their version of Jesus.

[Giancarlo]

There's a shocker.

What do you mean?

[Giancarlo]

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/argentine-church-under-the-shadow-of-the-dirty-war/

Lovely. The Catholic church was deeply embedded with the junta. Some morals. They said priests read the last rites to people before they were murdered.

[Ming]

If they could not have children with each other, this would be an argument from biology that there were substantial (differences in the substance) between the two.
WRT to homosexuality, we do not see that men with other men can have children. Ergo, there is a substantial difference between this union and the union of a man and a woman.

So one more time since you never have really answered the question with anything close to logic...
An infertile couple can't have children... but you don't seem to have a problem with them getting married.
Old people past the age of having children... but you don't seem to have a problem with them getting married.
People who don't want to have children and never do... but you don't seem to have a problem with them getting married.

The only thing you have a problem with is same sex couples getting married.
Yet there is no difference in the those unions as with any of three listed above.

So your whole argument is full of crap. Your whole "If they could not have children with each other, this would be an argument from biology that there were substantial (differences in the substance) between the two." is just BS. Both outcomes are the same... Not being able to have children.

So there is NO difference.
You have no problem with the children issue when it comes to a heterosexual marriage... But when it comes to Gays, the fact they can't have children is a big problem.

It's all just a lame justification for your bigoted crap.

The majority of people don't see it as a sin. They aren't Catholic, so why should Catholic morals over ride theirs.
Again, Religious Freedom means freedom for all... not just Catholics.

[Giancarlo]

Ben is a total bigot. My relationship with my boyfriend is just as valid as a heterosexual couple. He cannot argue that and he will always be wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

So one more time since you never have really answered the question with anything close to logic...
An infertile couple can't have children... but you don't seem to have a problem with them getting married.

You evaluate the nature of something by what is normal.

Infertility is an abnormal functioning - it is a sign that something is not right. You could not evaluate the true nature of the union of a man and a woman through an infertile couple.

The only thing you have a problem with is same sex couples getting married.

Not true, I have a problem with incestuous couplings, etc.

Yet there is no difference in the those unions as with any of three listed above.

Actually there are substantive differences.

The majority of people don't see it as a sin.

I'm not sure how what the majority of people want is relevant when it comes to morality.

They aren't Catholic, so why should Catholic morals over ride theirs.

Why does the state pay for education? The state has an interest in children and in regularizing marriage. From these presuppositions, the conclusion can be drawn that the state has an interest in recognizing marriage between one man and one woman.

[Ming]

Ben is a total bigot. My relationship with my boyfriend is just as valid as a heterosexual couple. He cannot argue that and he will always be wrong.

All he can argue is that the Catholic Church considers it a sin. He is welcome to do so. Thanks to religious freedom in this country, the Catholic church can refuse to marry gay couples. Any argument that it should be illegal is crap since most people don't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. And the same freedom that allows the Church to deny gays the sacrament of marriage allows other Churches (or the state) the right to perform gay marriages since it isn't against their religions.

Sin is in the eye of the beholder. The Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on defining sin.
But BK seems to think Religious Freedom only applies to the Catholic Church.
He is wrong.