‘If We Don’t Care, Gay Marriage Will Pass’

[TarkanAttila]

The state had to create something for non-religious people, so it used “marriage.”

I don’t know about the State in regards to marriage, save that state-recognised marriages are an attempt to secularise (that is, to make something independent of religion) the originally religious state of marriage. Also, if state “marriage” is for the irreligious, why do religious people apply for state marriage licenses? The state “marriage” is in reality a subsidy. But of what? Love? I think there is more to it than that. (Love is not exactly profitable, and it is in the State’s best interest to stay profitable, especially in days like these.)

I totally agree with anyone who says it is homosexuals trying to push their definition of morality on the rest of society, especially conservatives and the Abrahamic religions. They are using a loophole created (not purposefully) by the American state a long time ago: the misuse of the word “marriage” to mean a secular union of some sort with state-backed subsidy.

But by establishing “marriage” as the term of choice for this subsidy, it has misused the word. A word dear to many faiths worldwide. And now the homoseuxals and liberals are trying to use this definition to define all marriages, both religious and secular. We must, I think, define marriage as a religious concept, not a secular one, or gay “marriage” will continue to proliferate on the basis of this misunderstanding. Consider the repercussions.

When our posterity consider the word “marriage”, will they consider as they do the word “love” today? “Love” is too often incorrectly defined as an intense fondness for something. That kind of love is not the kind that is asked for in the vows; it is certainly impractical, not to mention nonsensical, in that context. Married love is more of a synonym for “commitment”; it is a cooperation that two people must persevere in because of that first intense passion. Am I right? Confuse this with the dictionary definition, and it is little wonder divorce is such a common instance in American society. “Marriage” is the same way.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The best compromise has always been civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage.

As I have said, I think the best option would be to leave marriage to the religious. Let the state issue only “civil unions” - to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

It just passed in New York.

ALBANY – The state Senate gave final approval Friday night to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the sixth and largest state in the nation to allow gay couples to marry.

The Senate passed the bill 33-29, with four Republicans voting yes. The bill needed 32 votes for passage.

 

[Ellen_Nino]

I think it’s just a matter of time. There seems to be a great momentum behind it.

I wonder if this forum will agree with a “civil union”, “marriage” or whatever, between a teacher (grade school for example) and his/her 9 year old student? Can they be civilly united? What about a father with his son? A mother with her daughter? How about any older person with any child out there?

Or let’s take it further, how about multiple partners, can they be civil unions?

How about a man with his dog? A woman with a chimpanzee, can they have civil unions?

I am not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings here. Just some questions to think about. Once we change God’s definition of marriage (man, woman) we open an entire pandoras box.

 

[irishpatrick]

As I have said, I think the best option would be to leave marriage to the religious. Let the state issue only “civil unions” - to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

The problem is gays want the word marriage. So there really is no compromise, and frankly why should they compromise, they are winning this struggle.

 

[comrade1789]

Drink up! That filthy cup of abomination poured out on the world; the whole world is getting drunk off this poison. Lord Jesus, come in Glory. It is so eery to imagine a world as portrayed by the Archidiocese of NY after the SSA-Civil Union bill passed:

archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=20810

“The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled…”

The statement goes on to make the same concessions to unrepentant sodomites as the English translation of the Catechecism does, using the word “homosexual.” Technically, the sexual act itself is ordered for the opposisite and complementary gender, so in reality there is no such person as a “homosexual,” that’s impossible. What they engage in is masturbatory stimulation of the genitals involving the body of a person of the same sex. The one good thing about error and heresy is that it gets the Church to define and discover more deeply what it already holds to be true.

While they’re at it, I hope they clear up the ambiguous language in the CCC regarding Islam as well.

 

[comrade1789]

I wonder if this forum will agree with a “civil union”, “marriage” or whatever, between a teacher (grade school for example) and his/her 9 year old student? Can they be civilly united? What about a father with his son? A mother with her daughter? How about any older person with any child out there?

Or let’s take it further, how about multiple partners, can they be civil unions?

How about a man with his dog? A woman with a chimpanzee, can they have civil unions?

I am not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings here. Just some questions to think about. Once we change God’s definition of marriage (man, woman) we open an entire pandoras box.

Bingo!

 

[Rence]

No need to be nasty just because you disagree.Snotty comment like."Thank you for proving that you are ill-informed…"really are uncalled for on a Catholic forum.

I don’t think (name removed by moderator) was being nasty or snotty at all. It’s not that he disagreed. He was observing that CathModerate didn’t understand the annullment process and based his opinion on annulments that lack of knowedge.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Just let it pass already, maybe God will wake up and burn the Western world to the ground already…

 

[TarkanAttila]

I wonder if this forum will agree with a “civil union”, “marriage” or whatever, between a teacher (grade school for example) and his/her 9 year old student? Can they be civilly united? What about a father with his son? A mother with her daughter? How about any older person with any child out there?

Or let’s take it further, how about multiple partners, can they be civil unions?

How about a man with his dog? A woman with a chimpanzee, can they have civil unions?

I am not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings here. Just some questions to think about. Once we change God’s definition of marriage (man, woman) we open an entire pandoras box.

Amen, Amen. Some people say it’s a slippery slope fallacy, the slope is already there. The gays build off of the African American civil rights’ movement, which was not opposed by the Church, anyway - only by some screwed up Southerners in the US.

Besides, by the logic of the homosexuals, a single person should be allowed to adopt and get an incentive for raising children, too. Or a brother and sister raising their own child. Or a man and his three wives raising their eighteen children. Now, I am not opposed to polygamy myself, but the Church is. And the world is. The Church is opposed to homosexuality, too. The world isn’t.

But why is the world opposed to polygamy and bestiality and incest etcetera when it supports gay marriage on similar grounds to arguments these people could use?

And why don’t homosexuals talk about the money? It costs a lot in taxes to pay for a “married” couple.

The problem is gays want the word marriage. So there really is no compromise, and frankly why should they compromise, they are winning this struggle.

We can’t think like that, man. We’ve got to stand and fight for what is right. There is a reason the Church is not pacifist, but support Just Wars and killing in the name of self-defence. The Church needs martyrs. but it needs defenders, too.

Just let it pass already, maybe God will wake up and burn the Western world to the ground already…

God, I hope so. We, the Western world, are a Proud people, and it is Pride that is the root of all other sins. Pride made Satan who he is today.

God, obliterate this prideful people - the modern world. Obliterate all the pride that is in me so I may be more like You and less like Satan.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

it is not the western world that is the source of pride, but satan. Western Culture was based on christianity for the longest time. Europe is christendom. these new ideas are infecting our cultures.

 

[Rence]

I wonder if state marriage licenses and legal marriages might not be overstepping the government’s religious bounds. What gives the gov’t the right to marry people as if they had the power of priests? I dare wonder if secular marriage is unconstitutional. I believe in the Bill of Rights it says the government cannot have a state religion or starts its own. If marriage is a religious, spiritual ceremony and status, isn’t the government declaring, by saying it can grant marriages, that it has religious authority in an issue (whether or not two people are married)? The US government may do well to rename “marriage” as per their terms - or possibly abandon the whole secular concept.

Well…you’re forgetting that civil marriage is a civil legal contract/agreement, that entitles spouses to such things as being added to insurance policies, etc. Civil marriage does not mean that the State has started a religion of its own. The goverment is not declaring any religious authority. And they’re overstepping no religious bounds by marrying people civilly. You, as a Catholic, are confusing Sacramental marriage with civil marriage, which are two totally different things. The government has not changed Sacramental marriage at all. It is today as it always has been.

 

[Rence]

I don’t know about the State in regards to marriage, save that state-recognised marriages are an attempt to secularise (that is, to make something independent of religion) the originally religious state of marriage. Also, if state “marriage” is for the irreligious, why do religious people apply for state marriage licenses?

Because civil marriage is a legal contract that entitles spouses things such as being added to their spouse’s insurance policies, they can collect their deceased spouse’s social security, etc. It’s a legal arrangment with legal benefits.

The state “marriage” is in reality a subsidy. But of what? Love? I think there is more to it than that. (Love is not exactly profitable, and it is in the State’s best interest to stay profitable, especially in days like these.)

Not everyone wants a religious marriage, that doesn’t mean they don’t love each other.

But by establishing “marriage” as the term of choice for this subsidy, it has misused the word. A word dear to many faiths worldwide.

Actually merriam-webster defines marriage as:
“a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. That definition, being a secular definition, has nothing to do with religion.

And now the homoseuxals and liberals are trying to use this definition to define all marriages, both religious and secular. We must, I think, define marriage as a religious concept, not a secular one, or gay “marriage” will continue to proliferate on the basis of this misunderstanding. Consider the repercussions.

There will never be anything different about the Sacrament of Marriage. It always has been, and is, the same.

 

[Bwtby]

I wonder if this forum will agree with a “civil union”, “marriage” or whatever, between a teacher (grade school for example) and his/her 9 year old student? Can they be civilly united? What about a father with his son? A mother with her daughter? How about any older person with any child out there?

Or let’s take it further, how about multiple partners, can they be civil unions?

How about a man with his dog? A woman with a chimpanzee, can they have civil unions?

I am not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings here. Just some questions to think about. Once we change God’s definition of marriage (man, woman) we open an entire pandoras box.

Exactly.

And I cannot wait for the day. I hope Mormans and American Muslims fight for their ‘marriage rights’! Soon!

 

[TarkanAttila]

Well…you’re forgetting that civil marriage is a civil legal contract/agreement, that entitles spouses to such things as being added to insurance policies, etc. Civil marriage does not mean that the State has started a religion of its own. The goverment is not declaring any religious authority. And they’re overstepping no religious bounds by marrying people civilly. You, as a Catholic, are confusing Sacramental marriage with civil marriage, which are two totally different things. The government has not changed Sacramental marriage at all. It is today as it always has been.

Mmm… fair point. :-/ I still don’t like the idea.

And the gays are treating it as if it were so. Which makes sense since the government is like God to many an atheist or liberal. (If you have no God to turn to, who else is there in this country? Before the age of the secular government, even kings, queens, and parliaments turned to God for guidance. Not so much, nowadays.)

Because civil marriage is a legal contract that entitles spouses things such as being added to their spouse’s insurance policies, they can collect their deceased spouse’s social security, etc. It’s a legal arrangment with legal benefits.

Not everyone wants a religious marriage, that doesn’t mean they don’t love each other.

Actually merriam-webster defines marriage as:
“a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. That definition, being a secular definition, has nothing to do with religion.

There will never be anything different about the Sacrament of Marriage. It always has been, and is, the same.

1. The first one is fine and dandy and all, but where is the money coming from? The government? And where do they get their money from? The taxpayer. And taxpayers are overburdened as it is. The State is going to have to cut something from its budget already! There is no fiscal room for gay marriage (and so many other government ambitions). And gay marriage will only create more problems the government either must fix or the rest of us must (like increased STDs).
2. True, but that’s not my point. My point is, both Catholic marriage and state civil “marriages” acknowledge there is more to marriage than love. Even a relationship like marriage (without the fancy ceremony or paperwork or benefits but with the same commitment) is about more than love.
3. Drat; you caught me.
4. Yes, I agree; the Church does not roll with the tide like the rest of the world. It didn’t with contraception. Nor with abortion. Nor female ordination. It will not with gay marriage.

I still wish to abolish civil marriage, or rename it, or something. Partially to deprive gays of the pleasure of knowing “they’ve won” a battle which they haven’t.

God Almighty, why on Your Green Earth didn’t you cause the country to collapse when that one insurance group collapsed? Couldn’t you have had Obama or Bush shot that day? Couldn’t you have just persuaded the government to think “it doesn’t matter if they collapse; we’ll be fine”?

I want the country - nay, the whole dang world - thrown into complete ruin and anarchy so we can FINALLY start anew!

 

[tm30]

Because civil marriage is a legal contract that entitles spouses things such as being added to their spouse’s insurance policies, they can collect their deceased spouse’s social security, etc. It’s a legal arrangment with legal benefits.

Not everyone wants a religious marriage, that doesn’t mean they don’t love each other.

What is love? Willing the ultimate good for the other. What is the ultimate good? Being united with God. Who is God? God is love.

These individuals are not practicing “love”. They are responding to disordered infatuation with members of the same sex, and acting on it. The “marriage” agenda comes from their own sense of inadequacy and a very deep-down understanding that what they call “love and marriage” is a pale imitation (mockery?) of the real thing.

And I know it’s been said over and over, but it really does prove that if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage. If it’s really about things like inheritance, then a person should certainly be able to marry their housepet since Leona Helmsley has already proven that one can leave an inheritance to an animal.

There will never be anything different about the Sacrament of Marriage. It always has been, and is, the same.

Agreed, the Sacrament won’t change, but it’s relevance will continue to wither for future generations begotten by the generation that treats everything as a “civil right”, even when it runs so grossly afoul of the Natural Law.

 

[OriginalJS]

Yet, a Catholic cannot licitly marry outside the Church without permission.

Technically correct; but it happens all the time and many involved still go to Mass and receive Holy Communion. I have seen this many times, and I’ll bet others on this site have too.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Polygamy is the next human right. Who says that love can’t be divided towards multiple women. USA! USA! or shall I say mo-ha-mud! jo-seph smith!

 

[Rence]

Polygamy is the next human right. Who says that love can’t be divided towards multiple women. USA! USA! or shall I say mo-ha-mud! jo-seph smith!

I always thought polygamy would be legalized before SSM…with all influx of muslims and the “popularity” of the religious sects that practice polygamy.

 

[lao_tzu]

Polygamy is the next human right. Who says that love can’t be divided towards multiple women. USA! USA! or shall I say mo-ha-mud! jo-seph smith!

… Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, …