63 ex-priests in Washington State speak out in favor of marriage equality

[_Abyssinia]

No, it doesn’t. You can share the Gospel, of course. The Gospel says: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned…

Denying them the rights associated with civil union won’t do thing one to stop them “living in a state of sin” if you are referring to sexual behavior. The only thing accomplished by refusing them these benefits is continued marginalization which promotes MORE sin.

Not at all loving.

Perhaps you should read Bishop Conley’s column about civil unions

 

[zab]

After watching another advertisement in which the person defends “gay marriage” by saying “We are all God’s children…” I was reminded that -yes, we are all God’s children. We belong to Him. He created us and knows how we are meant to be. Those supporting gay marriage always omit the fact that practicing homosexuals must protect themselves from deadly disease. Why should there be need for protection if what they are doing is natural and right? Redifning marriage will not get rid of HIV/AIDS.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I don’t see the logic in this at all. Why not provide heroin users with free needles? Oh, wait, we already do.

There is no ‘right’ to mortal sin.

I didn’t say there was. But there’s no logic in denying civil rights to people by saying “It will make less sin.” It won’t.

 

[manualman]

Julia,

When and where did legal recognition of marriage become a “civil right?” Stop for a moment and consider what you are asserting. The ONLY reason government recognizes marriage in the first place is that a LONG time ago, some farsighted leaders realized that marriage is fundamentally ordered towards producing healthy, happy, educated and responsible future generations of citizens. Said leaders further recognized that raising kids is expensive and that if they wanted that behavior to continue, they might need to grant certain priviledges to those who entered into marriage. Things like joint property ownership, benefits, survivorship, social security, etc.

If marriage is nothing more than a public recognition of two people feeling gooey about each other then government has NO business being involved or granting priviledges. But if marriage fundamentally is something ordered towards making healthy next generations, perhaps there is a role. But if the latter really is why we historically have given favored treatment to marriage, then it should be clear why gay unions are ineligible for it.

 

[MJE]

I didn’t say there was. But there’s no logic in denying civil rights to people by saying **“It will make less sin.” **It won’t.

Who argues against redefining marriage as it will make less sin?

Give us an idea of how you think marriage should be redefined?

 

[Julia_Mae]

If marriage is nothing more than a public recognition of two people feeling gooey about each other then government has NO business being involved or granting priviledges. .

But it isn’t about that at all. The government is indifferent to the feelings of the couple. The state grants certain privileges and benefits to married persons. If the couple divorce, the state assumes control over their property and children, and decides what to do with those.

Marriage is not a civil right, that I know of, but it is a state that offers benefits to the individuals involved in it. I’m perfectly happy with the solution of eliminating marriage altogether from government oversight and the benefits thereto appertaining. However, if such a civil contract as we call marriage is going to continue to exist with benefits, then all American citizens should have the right to obtain those benefits. As the gender of the individuals is irrelevant in terms of rights and benefits, it shouldn’t be considered in making the contract.

 

[manualman]

JM,
You dodged the main point. Government began to grant priviledges to married couples precisely because the insitution is fundamentally ordered towards perpetuating healthy civilization via the making and raising of children. That’s WHY married people were given special joint property ownership rights, exemption from probate when one spouse dies, survivorship benefits in social security, etc.

When you demand that gay couples be given equivalent benefits, you ignore the reason these perks were created in the first place! They exist in order to offset the burden society places on the creation and raising of kids, a situation that marriage is, by nature, ordered towards.

Perhaps now people will start to see how badly contraception has messed up our society. We’ve forgotten how integrally connected marriage and babies really are so that we can’t see the absurdity of using the word “marriage” to describe a relationship that is sterile by its very nature.

 

[wavejim]

Bishop Tyson says, " This is the tragic irony: a law touted as a victory for civil rights and equality is actually a loss…for the most vulnerable among us, children".

 

[Julia_Mae]

JM,
You dodged the main point. Government began to grant priviledges to married couples precisely because the insitution is fundamentally ordered towards perpetuating healthy civilization via the making and raising of children. .

I see no evidence at all to support this argument. The benefits of marriage conserve property and resources and keep men from killing each other over access to women for sex and in a few cases, so they know which offspring are theirs.

But it’s also irrelevant, in terms of the present issue. The real issues are: now instead of wondering about the perennial bachelor at work, you’ll be meeting his spouse at the office picnic and be openly confronted with the fact they are probably doing you-know-what. You’ll be expected to treat them with courtesy or risk losing your own job. Instead of a society where a person’s gender identity a deep dark secret they ought to be ashamed of, they’ll just be people.

All this talk about what marriage was or is or the children or all this hoorah, doesn’t account for the fact that the government has never before displayed the slightest interest in the welfare of children. As late as the 70s, in most states, you’d do more time for beating a guy to death in a drunken bar brawl than shaking your infant to death in your home. The government never stopped what was simply child slavery in factories until activists forced through child protection laws. Those laws followed, not preceded, animal welfare laws.

The “welfare of children” as a function of marriage claim came after the fact of it, not before and mostly in response to why whites should not marry blacks and now, why gay persons shouldn’t marry at all. I didn’t buy it in the 60s and I’m sure not buying it now.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Bishop Tyson says, " This is the tragic irony: a law touted as a victory for civil rights and equality is actually a loss…for the most vulnerable among us, children".

Except for the children who would have grown up shunted from one foster home to another except they were adopted by gay couples. The ones I know are quite happy and healthy.

 

[Araoti]

May our heavenly father save our world again and again in the name of jesus christ his son, our lord and savior. Amen amen

When being applied to actions which violate rational conscience and natural law, it is no longer social justice or charity, it is heresy.

Jesus calls us to love, but loving someone does not mean giving them carte blanche to do what they will, it means to teach them the proper ways to act, to support them through their troubles, and to always do what is in their best interest. Since homosexual activities are inherently wrong, and engaging in them is gravely sinful, the loving thing to do is to inform and correct the offending parties, not let them continue living in a state of sin.

Following this, the true social justice is in teaching, not in “tolerating”

 

[manualman]

I see no evidence at all to support this argument. The benefits of marriage conserve property and resources and keep men from killing each other over access to women for sex and in a few cases, so they know which offspring are theirs.
…
The “welfare of children” as a function of marriage claim came after the fact of it, not before and mostly in response to why whites should not marry blacks and now, why gay persons shouldn’t marry at all. I didn’t buy it in the 60s and I’m sure not buying it now.

Perhaps you need a newspaper subscription or just need to get out more. No evidence? It’s starkly clear in our society that kids raised in a stable family with their father and mother present by vast margins grow up to be the productive and happy citizens in society. By contrast, the prisons are FULL of criminals who grew up in broken homes. Society has recognized this rather further back than the 1960’s-70’s! Bunches of centuries further back.

ALL catholic sexual teaching revolves around the fundamental fact that marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are part of a intertwined whole. When they are treated as separate subjects, societal disaster ALWAYS results. But don’t take my word for it. After all, you’re getting your way in society. Just keep you eyes open and watch what happens as it plays out. It’s not going to be pretty.

And spare us the facile comparisons to racism. As if ridiculous past extrapolations about skin color differences mean that differences in sex are nothing more than narrow minded social constructs. Do you really believe that??