The Church isn't changing its teachings. There are some pastors who wished it would, and they are going to try to see how far they can manipulate the "rules" implementing the teachings, without actually changing the teaching.
The problem for them is the Bible is a hard thing to explain away while maintaining credibility. Why believe the Church is an authority empowered by Jesus if it contradicts the Bible on an issue that is so clearly set forth?
As far as Catholic intolerance towards homosexuals, the number of gay clergy should dispel that myth. The differnece now is the push to conflate condemning homosexual ACTS with condemning people who have homosexual attractions. Is that concept really so difficult to understand? For example, is condemning an alcoholic's drinking really the same as condemning him as a person?
The rest of the world has already had this discussion and moved on. Hyperbolize much?
Muslims, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, ... that's a couple of billion that haven't moved on. Seems Appeals Courts and SCOTUS aren't in lockstep either.
Add China, India, and Russia... The vast majority of the world. The rich kids and their IMF vassals are the only ones doing the changing.
*Gay marriage is legal in 29 states in the US. Last I checked, society in the above countries hasn't crumbled and regressed into chaos.
I do believe that the Church's doctrine on human sexuality is mistaken, but the adoption of gay marriage in other countries does not prove that. This fact only counters the arguments of others who say that gay marriage will destroy society, ruin families, etc.
So the idea is that pro-traditional marriage folks assert that society was immediately going to crumble as soon as they legalized gay marriage? I doubt very many people at all ever argued that. Wouldn't most assume that the effects of undermining traditional, sexual morality would be gradual, not immediate?
Even if they did, why would that nonsense be your basis for judging whether it was harmful or not? The utilitarian, non-religious perspective the idea is not difficult to understand. The family unit represents the "natural" foundational building block of society, with a complimentary relationship beween a man and a woman dedicated to making sacrifices to raise their own offspring. You undermine such foundational institutions at your own peril. The burden of proof is on the person wishing to fundamentally overturn things to prove its harmless before he makes the change. I don't knock out a wall on the first floor of my house with out making darn sure I know exactly what its holding up. Just inisisting on the rigteousness of your own position with the support of the popular culture and insisting that nothing will happen is not sufficient.
