Peter, I think you’re at the end of your rope on this. Logic and evidence having failed, you’re resorting to arguments that have become incoherent. I doubt that anyone reading what you have reading would understand it.

Frank, it is utterly ridiculous to label as “oppression” the refusal to give cohabiting people of the same sex the same privileges as are given to people married according to a definition that lasted from prehistory to the latter half of the 20th century. Next thing you know you will be saying it is “oppression” to deny Mormons and Muslims the privilege of marrying as many people as they want, or to deny siblings with no means of begetting children by each other the privilege of marrying each other.

“God…does them himself?”

Actually, Peter, I did not say that “all homosexuals in traditional marriages are unhappy.” You can re-read my comment if you like.

A mixed-orientation marriage is in almost every case based on a lie. One of the partners has not leveled with the other during the courtship phase, and that betrayal of trust can have far-reaching consequences for the spouses, their children, and their extended family.

The sexual component of marriage is certainly not all that marriage is, but it is an important part. Even more important are the levels of trust and authenticity in the relationship.

One is not worried about hell; one is curious that you could believe in one. You Earth people are most curious.

Frank, you have nothing of substance to counter what I wrote, and are resorting to some standard tactics of trolls, of whom I’ve encountered all too many in over a decade of intensive Usenet posting.

Yesterday I realized something that further undermines your case: the historical context of Hosea 13:16 is that Assyria was conquering one people after another, and the Book of Hosea has God deciding not to save Israel from the fate that had befallen so many already, on account of its numerous sins. The horrible details in that verse, including the ripping open of pregnant women, were descriptions of some of the atrocities practiced by the armies of Assyria, one of whose kings boasted at great length of the gruesome details of his conquests.

Numbers 5 clearly implies that, yes. And you would understand why I am unafraid to say such things, if you had not chosen to bury your head in the sand about what I said about life after death and “All life belongs to me” [Ezekiel 18:4]. Your empty taunts claiming victory (“end of your rope”) in response to that particular message of mine were a classic case of projection.

The agenda is not “radical.” Please use another term. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it radical. “Radical” means outside the normal parameters of the debate and this certainly is within them. The people who wish to have access to abortion don’t force this choice on those who regard it as murder. It’s not commonly agreed that abortion is murder, so the charge of murder can’t be leveled at them at this time, hence the users of abortion aren’t open to the charge. The use of pejoratives doesn’t make a charge real. Expecting full-range health care is a worker’s right in this day and age, and that includes contraception. It’s not a religious issue to have it available through workplace health plans. It doesn’t violate anyone’s religious liberties to have it available. The Church doesn’t have to recommend contraception usage, it simply has to make it available as part of its health plan because it’s good for people’s health. That’s not a radical agenda. Period.

And heck, you know and I know that the problem is with the Church, not the people. There’s nothing more subjective than religion. If you use religion as a guide, you’ll never find agreement. Religions are designed to divide, not unite. They are not forces for universal good.

I’m sorry but those damned Bible verses are only for believers. They have nothing to do with the general population. Never bring the Bible to a morality argument. It is not a good source.

May I remind you that all religions—yours included—are myth-based systems through which people evaluate the world. They are not objective descriptions of any external sources; they are entirely human constructs, yours included (if you have one). We have no way of knowing whose religion is correct, and the a priori odds of any one religion being correct are zero, yours included. That’s not a matter of debate; that’s just odds.

Peter, read this carefully. It’s God speaking to Moses (from Numbers 5:11-21):

“Let the priest …say to the woman, ‘the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!’”

I do not see any possibilities for alternative interpretations of that passage.

OK, Peter, I’ll give you a provisional pass on that one. How about this one: “I will bereave them … I will kill the cherished offspring of their womb.” (Hosea 9:11-16) Notice the subject pronoun.

Peter, although your two scenarios are certainly possible, I can’t imagine that they are very common. At the present time, I’m not aware of any studies that would support either your position or mine.

Hi Frank,

In addition to the whole ‘boob’ thing, everyone can see that you’ve hit upon a particular, subjective view of the Bible that simply runs counter to the way people of faith have normally read the Bible for 2,000 years or so. You seem to think the Bible is a big Morality Instruction Manual, and that the reason for its existence is that it should be something we consult in order to know how to behave. It isn’t. It is a sacred, inspired collection of books that tells us, above all, how God saves us, in spite of ourselves. It’s full of men and women who did all sorts of things that shock and scandalize us, and how God brings about a reconciliation between himself and us in the midst of it all.

One big principle that the Church teaches consistently about reading the Bible is this:

“What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East as it is in our own times…The interpreter must go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing the authors of that period would be likely to use, and in fact did use.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943).

The “mode” included making God the official for all their laws and rules, including the bloody ones. We aren’t meant to believe that God actually leaned down and said: “rip their children out of their wombs!” That kind of violence was common in the ancient Israelites’ day (as it has become in our own), and the original writers of the OT knew only that God was Someone who loved his people, and protected them from others, if they were faithful. Naturally, they saw foreigners as enemies, and they wrote that into their scriptures. Does that describe how God feels about it, as well? No–we know that now. We know, because it has been shown that God loves us and is willing to incarnate and die for all of us–even us gentiles!

It’s high time you took a step back from the cherry-picked passages taken out of context and tried to see what God really wants you to see in the Bible: that, despite human weakness and frailty, He abides in mercy, and wants both you and President Obama and all of us to be with Him forever in heaven forever.

Harry, that’s a pretty grim view of the human condition. I guess you are probably expressing a minority view among Catholics. Why would you worship a God that would allow all that suffering? Gruesome!

Give it up, Frank. Quit trying to bait me. It won’t work. I’m just not that interested in your facile ideas.

Your “reminder” is rejected as a classic case of the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” [Do you know the REAL meaning of that expression?]

What’s more, you are playing “bad cop” to Frank’s “good cop.” He is a fellow atheist of yours, but he made some allegations about what the Bible CLAIMS, and I was addressing those.

Needless to say, you aren’t correcting HIM.

As usual, Frank, you are pretending to be the objective person after having made an outrageous claim–in this case, that it is “oppression” to deny gay people (who already have the right to do everything to each other that same-sex marriage allegedly gives them) privileges like the tax break of “married, filing jointly” that the US Circuit Court of Appeal in Boston wanted to give them in a May decision.

Now that this article is no longer on the front page of Catholic Exchange, I will only add that your garbage about “bright line” and the “state’s compelling interest” is something you made up off the top of your head, without having any court decisions to back you up.

You are actually one of a very small percentage of Democrats who profess to be pro-life, according to statistics. I happened to see Dr. Stephen Schneck, board member of Democrats for Life and director of
the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at Catholic
University of America, being interviewed by Raymond Orroyo on EWTN (that is a cable channel with Catholic programming if you are not familiar). Well, let me put it this way, poor Mr. Schneck had some talking points that didn’t quite hold up when the light of truth shone upon them. Especially the gem about how budget cuts will cause there to be even more abortions. He could present no evidence to uphold this claim, but, he kept right on pushing it even in the face of a persistent request for facts from Orroyo. You seem really serious about your outrage and your desire to “change the party’s outlook”, but where you may experience a bit of a problem is that your party has no desire to change their march toward a secular society with an absence of any Judeo-Christian values. Good luck.

why do you folks come to a catholic website to discuss anything? isn’t clear you are just here to cause problems ,not have a legitimate discussion? you are obvioously not Catholics.

“Jimmy Carter = Blind Faithful Democrat” totally true, and the only other thing I can say here is, Hurray for John Lennon supporting Reagan over Carter in 1980! (In his later years, Lennon grew more conservative, to the point that he thought Carter was a schiester even as president and was frustrated that he couldn’t vote for Reagan because he still wasn’t a full US citizen. Lennon and Reagan did get to meet at a baseball game and had a heck of a time swapping jokes)