Word Vomit
Here's another, this time with the regurgitated doctrine attached. I'm losing patience.
Hi there,
I haven't considered a moment of this exchange to be a waste of time. I still value your input, and I really do want to understand your point of view. As yet, there are still a few points that are unclear to me. I have a desire to understand you, and to be understood.
I suppose I did just want to hear you put it in terms I can understand.
Let me see if I understand you properly:
1) Homosexual sex is wrong, and is never condoned, endorsed, or supported. The desire to act on it is also wrong.
2) well... that's pretty much it? right?
You can say I'm worth as much love as you, but to be denied such basic happiness says otherwise. This is a case of actions being louder than words. On this, I can agree that we disagree, and leave it at that, though it pains me to do so.
You didn't answer my other question though, as to why it should be ok for people who are unable or unwilling to be wed?
Is there some exception made for the love that could in some other reality have yielded a child?
Given these things, I think the "Dan and Michael" in that video are fantastical. If you "love the sinner and hate the sin" that is homosexuality, I find it hard to imagine you could really welcome a gay couple into your circle of friends and family, nor do I imagine they would be comfortable there.
Christ interacting with sinners is is of course reflected in his love for every one of us. Of course he loves us in the face of all the shit that we do. That isn't exactly what I was referring to. Maybe I can phrase it this way, as I understand it, one of the traditional descriptions of marriage is as an expression or reflection of God's love. Victor Hugo wrote "to love another person is to see the face of God." I hold these ideas to be true. Would you have me believe that my love for Vinse is more akin to prostitution and financial exploitation than say, the more pure love you and your penis have for Sun and her vagina?
That you claim to respect me troubles me. That you would deny my secular rights offends me. That you would deny my religious beliefs because they differ from yours horrifies me. To tell me you think my love to be a sin... I don't have the words....
So, even from here, I can accept that someone should hold and value such beliefs. Here I would ask that you excuse me from the authority of your magisterium. Is such a request amenable to you? I would ask for the freedom to believe and live as I will, not as someone else directs. My religious definition of marriage seems unrelated to yours, would you still deny mine? Could you say I am wrong to hold my beliefs? I then have to ask, can you not see how someone else's religion is different than your own? Does it not feel like you are imposing your religious beliefs onto me? Your definition of marriage comes directly out of the religious. Out of your religion. Again, I'm talking about secular marriage. If there are no laws preventing such marriage, why should it be illegal, if not for a ban imposed by a religious magisterium?
It seems this brings us back to the secular notion of "separate but equal." Do you have thoughts on my opinions of such a construct?
If Vinse and I were to be married, would you come to the celebration with Sun? I'm intentionally trying to make this personal. Just as the tally of votes is more about what every single one of those voters is saying to the individuals whose rights they are deciding.
It's true, I would rather be tolerated than despised, but I would still rather be affirmed.
That you have already voted is not very important to me. That you deny my happiness is important. Our friendship, though brief, is damaged for it. I too, wait with open arms for the day it can be repaired.
In Peace,
John
PS -- It feels odd to me to say, but my feeling is that I care more about this than you do. Maybe that's somehow natural. It's about my rights, not yours.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:57 PM:
Hi John,
Thanks for the time you take out to write to me. I don’t want to waste anymore of your time, but I’m not sure what you want from me; to change what I think about the issue, to change my vote (which is too late because I voted by absentee) or to hear out your position or to justify mine.
If it’s an explanation then I’m glad you’ve brought up the aspect of tradition and religion. You definitely speakah my language sir. I too understand faith being a 3-footed stool, except I understand it as, “Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium”. With magisterium being the church. Throughout salvation history we know in the old testament, God has always appointed someone “to be in charge” so that whenever there would be disagreements and different interpretation of scripture or tradition, there would be a final say to settle it. So, I know you understand my fidelity to the church.
The Catholic teaching on sex is that it’s reserved for a two-fold purposes: procreation and unity between a couple. This doesn’t mean that you have to have a baby each time you have sex, but you should be open to the possibility of life. If you take either of the purposes away then you run the risk of abusing the purpose of sex. With that said, marriage is the proper context in which to participate in sex because the commitment of the couple in case they do bring life into the world. Homosexual marriage cannot bring about life into the world and would encourage homosexual acts which is why the church believes it to be wrong. So yes, the church calls us all to be chaste according to our state in life.
BUT the church does not teach that homosexuals are any less of children of God and should not be treated any differently. So they’re called to be loved just like anyone else. I liked how you put it, Christ’s love was about “radical inclusivity”. He ate with gentiles, tax-collectors and prostitutes, but there was a distinction in that, even though he affirmed His love for them as children of God by breaking bread with them, he did not condone their behavior.
That means that even though I may not believe in your beliefs or your actions, that I should treat you no differently than how Christ treated others. And I understand if our difference cannot allow you to treat me as a friend anymore, but my arms are still open.
My prayer is not your will, or even my will be done, but God’s will done, and in the course peace.
God bless.
ret Messag
Hi there,
I haven't considered a moment of this exchange to be a waste of time. I still value your input, and I really do want to understand your point of view. As yet, there are still a few points that are unclear to me. I have a desire to understand you, and to be understood.
I suppose I did just want to hear you put it in terms I can understand.
Let me see if I understand you properly:
1) Homosexual sex is wrong, and is never condoned, endorsed, or supported. The desire to act on it is also wrong.
2) well... that's pretty much it? right?
You can say I'm worth as much love as you, but to be denied such basic happiness says otherwise. This is a case of actions being louder than words. On this, I can agree that we disagree, and leave it at that, though it pains me to do so.
You didn't answer my other question though, as to why it should be ok for people who are unable or unwilling to be wed?
Is there some exception made for the love that could in some other reality have yielded a child?
Given these things, I think the "Dan and Michael" in that video are fantastical. If you "love the sinner and hate the sin" that is homosexuality, I find it hard to imagine you could really welcome a gay couple into your circle of friends and family, nor do I imagine they would be comfortable there.
Christ interacting with sinners is is of course reflected in his love for every one of us. Of course he loves us in the face of all the shit that we do. That isn't exactly what I was referring to. Maybe I can phrase it this way, as I understand it, one of the traditional descriptions of marriage is as an expression or reflection of God's love. Victor Hugo wrote "to love another person is to see the face of God." I hold these ideas to be true. Would you have me believe that my love for Vinse is more akin to prostitution and financial exploitation than say, the more pure love you and your penis have for Sun and her vagina?
That you claim to respect me troubles me. That you would deny my secular rights offends me. That you would deny my religious beliefs because they differ from yours horrifies me. To tell me you think my love to be a sin... I don't have the words....
So, even from here, I can accept that someone should hold and value such beliefs. Here I would ask that you excuse me from the authority of your magisterium. Is such a request amenable to you? I would ask for the freedom to believe and live as I will, not as someone else directs. My religious definition of marriage seems unrelated to yours, would you still deny mine? Could you say I am wrong to hold my beliefs? I then have to ask, can you not see how someone else's religion is different than your own? Does it not feel like you are imposing your religious beliefs onto me? Your definition of marriage comes directly out of the religious. Out of your religion. Again, I'm talking about secular marriage. If there are no laws preventing such marriage, why should it be illegal, if not for a ban imposed by a religious magisterium?
It seems this brings us back to the secular notion of "separate but equal." Do you have thoughts on my opinions of such a construct?
If Vinse and I were to be married, would you come to the celebration with Sun? I'm intentionally trying to make this personal. Just as the tally of votes is more about what every single one of those voters is saying to the individuals whose rights they are deciding.
It's true, I would rather be tolerated than despised, but I would still rather be affirmed.
That you have already voted is not very important to me. That you deny my happiness is important. Our friendship, though brief, is damaged for it. I too, wait with open arms for the day it can be repaired.
In Peace,
John
PS -- It feels odd to me to say, but my feeling is that I care more about this than you do. Maybe that's somehow natural. It's about my rights, not yours.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:57 PM:
Hi John,
Thanks for the time you take out to write to me. I don’t want to waste anymore of your time, but I’m not sure what you want from me; to change what I think about the issue, to change my vote (which is too late because I voted by absentee) or to hear out your position or to justify mine.
If it’s an explanation then I’m glad you’ve brought up the aspect of tradition and religion. You definitely speakah my language sir. I too understand faith being a 3-footed stool, except I understand it as, “Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium”. With magisterium being the church. Throughout salvation history we know in the old testament, God has always appointed someone “to be in charge” so that whenever there would be disagreements and different interpretation of scripture or tradition, there would be a final say to settle it. So, I know you understand my fidelity to the church.
The Catholic teaching on sex is that it’s reserved for a two-fold purposes: procreation and unity between a couple. This doesn’t mean that you have to have a baby each time you have sex, but you should be open to the possibility of life. If you take either of the purposes away then you run the risk of abusing the purpose of sex. With that said, marriage is the proper context in which to participate in sex because the commitment of the couple in case they do bring life into the world. Homosexual marriage cannot bring about life into the world and would encourage homosexual acts which is why the church believes it to be wrong. So yes, the church calls us all to be chaste according to our state in life.
BUT the church does not teach that homosexuals are any less of children of God and should not be treated any differently. So they’re called to be loved just like anyone else. I liked how you put it, Christ’s love was about “radical inclusivity”. He ate with gentiles, tax-collectors and prostitutes, but there was a distinction in that, even though he affirmed His love for them as children of God by breaking bread with them, he did not condone their behavior.
That means that even though I may not believe in your beliefs or your actions, that I should treat you no differently than how Christ treated others. And I understand if our difference cannot allow you to treat me as a friend anymore, but my arms are still open.
My prayer is not your will, or even my will be done, but God’s will done, and in the course peace.
God bless.
ret Messag