Am I discriminating if I believe my marriage has a greater value than homosexual couplings?

[Odell]

Those who advocate homosexual marriage whould you say my marriage holds little to no value over others? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once but it’s not important now? If people are saying that the government should hold special rules for marriage how are you not discriminating upon them essencially saying they aren’t that special or they aren’t special in a way that governments should favorite one over another?

 

[fermat]

It is not wrong to discriminate in choices. The term discriminate has taken on a specific meaning because of racial discrimination. In truth, you discriminate every day. You always make judgement calls about what is and is not appropriate. You make choices based on your values. It is not wrong to discriminate in this sense.

As for marriage, this is an institution ordained by God. Government cannot supersede this.

 

[OpenSource]

The term discriminate has taken on a specific meaning because of racial discrimination.

Indeed. You are not racial discriminating like the media and government would like you to believe. Your mindset is in the right. Don’t be brainwashed by our sick culture to think that it’s wrong to disagree with homosexuality.

 

[ssa_fellow]

I think it’s terrible that we would doubt how good marriage is. But that’s what our enemies want, they want to devalue the Sacrament of marriage so that we would accept other relationships. And I think they’ve suceeded to some extent. We need to remember that the Sacrament of marriage fulfills God’s very first commandment: be fruitful and multiply.

I’ve said multiple times on at least 2 threads that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. And none of the gay-marriage advocates want to go near it. If someone else said it they’d probably immediantly label them as a “homophobe”. But, I bear the cross of SSA and I also live my life according to Church teaching. And on that basis no one can give me one good reason why every homosexual shouldn’t live according to Church teaching.

So, if I have more leeway to speak my mind on this issue I’ll say it loud and clear: “gay marriage” is INFERIOR to the Sacrament of Marriage. And so are all relationships between homosexuals. By their nature they’re centered around sin and selfishness. Even the name implies that they’re entirely focused on sex. Whereas, in the Sacrament of Marriage the bride and groom are called to love each other, love Jesus Christ (is loving God really a part of any “gay marriage”?), love his Church, and to love their children. Having children with someone is one of the greatest expressions of love between two people. And, if any gay marriage advocates are reading this, my question to you would be: what expression of love between gay sexual relationships is greater than being fruitful?

In other words: it should be plain for all people to see the joy and goodness in a married couple being FRUITFUL. Well… homosexual relationships are FRUITLESS… how does that not make them inferior?

 

[ASimon]

Those who advocate homosexual marriage whould you say my marriage holds little to no value over others? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once but it’s not important now? If people are saying that the government should hold special rules for marriage how are you not discriminating upon them essencially saying they aren’t that special or they aren’t special in a way that governments should favorite one over another?

I would certainly say that your heterosexual marriage has no inherently greater value than a homosexual relationship, and nor do I think it ever did. It may be plenty valuable, and to the extent that such things can be measured, it may be more valuable than other relationships. But wherever that greater value comes from, it does not come from the fact that your spouse is an opposing gender than you.

As it is - I don’t advocate that “special” rules be drawn up to allow gay couples to marry. I advocate that gay people be allowed to marry the people they love, which is a right afforded to straight people already.

 

[Odell]

I would certainly say that your heterosexual marriage has no inherently greater value than a homosexual relationship, and nor do I think it ever did. It may be plenty valuable, and to the extent that such things can be measured, it may be more valuable than other relationships. But wherever that greater value comes from, it does not come from the fact that your spouse is an opposing gender than you.

As it is - I don’t advocate that “special” rules be drawn up to allow gay couples to marry. I advocate that gay people be allowed to marry the people they love, which is a right afforded to straight people already.

I wouldn’t say the greater value comes from me being married to the opposite sex as well. I would say it has a greater value because its a lifelong, fruitfull union. Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we remarry, children have become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. The ideal family nees not include a father. A good father now a days is one who shows up at visitation and pays child support. Noble as it may be it shouldn’t be this way.

So in this context yes I do believe my marriage has more of an inherent value than all of the above including homosexual unions.

Is it wrong do do so? Many things are not equal in this world that’s the nature of the game. But is it any more discriminating than the fact that you hold no value in such marriages and essentially are discriminating my marriage?

By the way I appreciate the dialog thus far. I have no intentions of judging or condemning anyone and am open to your thoughts. Thanks!

 

[Nate13]

I would define discriminate as: treating two groups of people differently without a just reason.

So ask yourself, do you have just reasons for looking upon your marriage and a homosexual marriage differently? Are they pretty much the same thing, or are there real differences?

 

[raaucoin]

Those who advocate homosexual marriage whould you say my marriage holds little to no value over others? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once but it’s not important now? If people are saying that the government should hold special rules for marriage how are you not discriminating upon them essencially saying they aren’t that special or they aren’t special in a way that governments should favorite one over another?

I would say your marriage is something entirely different than a homosexual relationship. and its value is as valuable as you and your husband allow God to make it.Some married couples do that much better than others.

Take the sexual aspect out of the relationship- as some of us with God’s grace have been able to do -and you have a relationship (for some not all) of a deep abiding friendship that seeks the best life has to offer and supports each other as they seek the will of God in life. (My experience)–As a married woman, you are called with your husband in a specific way to mirror the love of God. As a single woman I am called to do that in a different way. As I have loving relationships with others( be it parents, siblings,friends, or my fellow parishioners) those relationships also should help to bring the love of God into the world.

The life and relationships God calls us each to has dignity, grace and value.If your marriage is centered around God it has greater value than any other marriage that is not.

Marriage and family is the foundation of society. So yes, your marriage has more value in that way than any other relationship. Does government understand that? it seems less and less so.

As far as “discrimination”: I remember an elderly lady that lived next door. She was very loving and caring. I started calling her “Momma”. When my mother heard this she was very disturbed by that. Because as caring and loving as the neighbor was to me, our relationship was not that of mother and daughter. My mom was offended. Not that she didn’t want me to have a relationship with this lady- but I tried to call a relationship something it wasn’t.And the relationship of mother and child (as I learned!) is something that no other relationship can be.
So to say you have a marriage and so did I (when active in a homosexual relationship) is like when I decided Ms. Neva was my mom. No she wasn’t(my mother) and no I didn’t (have a marriage).That isn’t discrimination it is fact.

 

[ASimon]

I wouldn’t say the greater value comes from me being married to the opposite sex as well. I would say it has a greater value because its a lifelong, fruitfull union. Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we remarry, children have become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. The ideal family nees not include a father. A good father now a days is one who shows up at visitation and pays child support. Noble as it may be it shouldn’t be this way.

So in this context yes I do believe my marriage has more of an inherent value than all of the above including homosexual unions.

As I said, some marriages/relationships are better than others. And you’ve listed some perfectly rational reasons why that can be so. But your definition of “fruitful” seems, ultimately, to reduce to the ability and willingness of two people to complete a rather specific act for a very specific purpose.

Given these parameters, it seems to hardly matter that two men can enjoy a loving, life-long relationship, while adopting a child to raise as their own. Nor that two women in the same sort of relationship can actually gestate and birth a child (with the aid of technology) and raise it as their own.

And lest we forget, not only are gay couples inferior by this logic, so are straight couple who, for whatever reasons, don’t want to have children, or simply can’t.

Is it wrong do do so? Many things are not equal in this world that’s the nature of the game. But is it any more discriminating than the fact that you hold no value in such marriages and essentially are discriminating my marriage?

You misunderstand - I hold value in marriages that stem from healthy relationships, where exist mutual love, respect, caring, etc. If that’s a fair picture of your marriage, then great. But what I don’t say is that your marriage is better than a gay couple’s marriage simply because they’re gay and you’re not. And it’s not me “discriminating” to reject your assertion that your marriage is inherently superior to a gay couple’s marriage. If I wanted to claim that gay marriage was superior to straight marriage, then you’d have a case. But I’m saying that they’re inherently equal.

 

[ReginaCoeli]

Of course a heterosexual marriage is superior to a “gay union” ( I can’t call it a marriage because no matter what some want to say, it isn’t a marriage". A marriage between one man & one woman follows the law of nature, God’s design. This is the very foundation of society, the building block of society. Like another poster has said, the institution has been seriously damaged by no-fault divorce, cohabitation, and other things; yet it is still the most stable, sacred, environment in which to raise children and build a society, a community. Some couples don’t want children; this is their right. But their union still contributes to the good of society overall. Since we’ve gained all of these so-called “rights” no fault divorce, abortion, the acceptance of homosexuality, can we honestly say our society is better off than it was say 50, 60 years ago? IMHO, we are far worse off. Allowing gays to “marry” will irrevocably damage our society. Mark my words. I pity a child growing up in these confusing times where nothing is either right or wrong, and there are no moral absolutes. Everybody is so afraid of “judging” someone. I can judge a behavior as wrong, without judging a person’s soul. Homosexuality is disordered and no amount of social acceptance will make it anything other than disordered. A great deal of good can come from a loving, committed marriage between one man & one woman; I see no societal good coming from a “homosexual union that they call a marriage”.

 

[Odell]

As I said, some marriages/relationships are better than others. And you’ve listed some perfectly rational reasons why that can be so. But your definition of “fruitful” seems, ultimately, to reduce to the ability and willingness of two people to complete a rather specific act for a very specific purpose.

I believe that a marriage that is fruitfull has a deeper personal union.

Given these parameters, it seems to hardly matter that two men can enjoy a loving, life-long relationship, while adopting a child to raise as their own. Nor that two women in the same sort of relationship can actually gestate and birth a child (with the aid of technology) and raise it as their own.

But the very act in and of itself is not based on the value of the person. They may desire children but the act itself lacks the gift of their fullness “fertility”

And lest we forget, not only are gay couples inferior by this logic, so are straight couple who, for whatever reasons, don’t want to have children,

This is why we extend this to those who contracept the whole relationship is based on the sexual valjue of the other person that bring physical or emotional pleasure and not on the value of the person as a whole again their fertility.

or simply can’t.

If they enter marriage wishing they can procreate they are therfore open to the creation of life perhaps praying for a miracle. thye have entered marriage that its a life creating institution and perhaps sadened by infertility but at least they have the frame of mind that it is not simply a romantic commitment.

You misunderstand - I hold value in marriages that stem from healthy relationships, where exist mutual love, respect, caring, etc.

We all have different oppinions on what is mutual love, respect… What if I lived a double life style and was married to two women mutualy loving and caring and respecting them both? Would it be descrimitory if I did so? Or what if I desired three wives?

But what I don’t say is that your marriage is better than a gay couple’s marriage simply because they’re gay and you’re not.

I dont either. I do however by the fact that the very act makes the person to have no other purpose than mere pleasure they become an object of use and enjoyment. The person has no other value in the act itself. It becomes mutual masturbation. This is not jsut an issue with homosexual couplings but with all who contracept. Where they are not offering there total person to their spouse. Its imposible in a homosexual relationship.

And it’s not me “discriminating” to reject your assertion that your marriage is inherently superior to a gay couple’s marriage. If I wanted to claim that gay marriage was superior to straight marriage, then you’d have a case. But I’m saying that they’re inherently equal.

I can at least see your point here. Im using this forum to redefine how I view this subject. Im lacking an anology here. All I have is that in naturel some things are just naturally superior that others. Im open to your thoughts.

Maybe someone here can help me?

 

[Eugenius]

I do not understand the preoccupation with marriage as a sign of “value,” it always comes across as a statement of pride. If we look at what Saint Paul tells us in Corinthians, an even more important calling is to remain single and be completely devoted to God. In that respect, “SSA Man” who responded earlier may have gotten it right, even moreso than those of us that are married!

1 Corinthians 7-8
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1 Corinthians 7

Teaching on Marriage

*1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
*8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

---

*32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

 

[Kithrus]

see this is what annoys me about the Gay movement. they want to push for laws that protect them, the right to marry and for acceptance.

the stupid part is that’s not going to happen…

We live in the western world where everyone has the right to think what they will. as a result even if the gay community get the first two they will never get the third. By virtue of having a nation where we have the freedom to not allow gay weddings in our faith they will never have said acceptance.

Their life style is a sin plain and simple as per the codes of our faith. However treating them like normal rational adults is what we as Christians are called to do.

See the scary part here is they as a whole will not accept that and they become the radical prosecutors only under the sheep’s clothing of ‘freedom’.

I could go on about how I feel this mentality is the larger cancer on society then what they do in the bed room but I feel I made my point.

 

[jeffspot]

Fascinating. I think this is the first time I’ve ever read about someone expressing fear that their marriage is less important because of the existance of gay marriages. Here I thought that insecurity was a ridiculous exaggeration. My mistake.

Seriously, the validity of your marriage isn’t a direct correlation to ‘what it’s better than’. A heterosexual marriage has the ability to bring forth children directly, a homosexual person / relationship does not - regardless of whether or not they pursue a relationship or remain celebate.

You’re clearly possessing of a gift that homosexuals are not. Congratulations. Perhaps next you’d like to point out to a short person what you can reach that they cannot.

 

[ASimon]

see this is what annoys me about the Gay movement. they want to push for laws that protect them, the right to marry and for acceptance.

the stupid part is that’s not going to happen…

We live in the western world where everyone has the right to think what they will. as a result even if the gay community get the first two they will never get the third. By virtue of having a nation where we have the freedom to not allow gay weddings in our faith they will never have said acceptance.

Their life style is a sin plain and simple as per the codes of our faith. However treating them like normal rational adults is what we as Christians are called to do.

See the scary part here is they as a whole will not accept that and they become the radical prosecutors only under the sheep’s clothing of ‘freedom’.

I could go on about how I feel this mentality is the larger cancer on society then what they do in the bed room but I feel I made my point.

I think the evolution of racism in America is instructive here. A century ago, newspapers wrote flagrantly racist articles, and lynchings were common. At said lynchings, often the entire town would turn out, as though for a carnival, to have their picture taken beneath the dangling, charred corpse of a black person. Body parts were collected as souvenirs and displayed in homes and businesses.

Now, I would hardly say that racism is no longer a problem in America, but if you look at this country in 2012, it’d be foolish to deny that race relations have advanced tremendously in the last century. Why do you think that is? Or, to put it another way, do you think it ever would’ve happened had legal equality not been mandated by government legislation?

Acceptance may be a long time coming, but it will be much longer coming if children are growing up in a world where gays cannot marry, and sodomy laws are still on the books and theoretically enforceable. But once the law grants them equality, general acceptance will eventually follow.

 

[Dale_M]

Odell:

Am I discriminating if I believe my marriage has a greater value than homosexual couplings?

No, of course not. You simply have an opinion, and certainly are entitled to it. Similarly, someone may think Heinz ketchup is superior to Hunt’s ketchup. Merely having an opinion on relative worth isn’t discriminatory, and it is reasonable to prize what you value.

Now, if you wanted to ban Hunt’s ketchup because you considered it less worthy than Heinz, then I think you would run into charges of discrimination.

 

[Odell]

Fascinating. I think this is the first time I’ve ever read about someone expressing fear that their marriage is less important because of the existance of gay marriages. Here I thought that insecurity was a ridiculous exaggeration. My mistake.

We’ll let you slide

Seriously, the validity of your marriage isn’t a direct correlation to ‘what it’s better than’.

Gay marriage couldn’t change my feelings about my marriage. However, the value others have in my marriage will be reduced if you don’t see that my procreative relationship with my wife is a special and unique one that is essential to future generations and perhaps worth valuing greater than other human pairings that are called marriages. Well… I guess my marriage has already been devalued in the minds of others and so much so that I’m the one being discriminated against.

You’re clearly possessing of a gift that homosexuals are not. Congratulations. Perhaps next you’d like to point out to a short person what you can reach that they cannot.

You must be short. I wouldn’t have to keep pointing out to short people if they didn’t keep on insisting that they can reach as high as me when clearly they can not.

I clearly do posses a gift that society keep on and keeps on devaluing; to the point that children are no longer valued at all in marriage.

 

[Odell]

I think the evolution of racism in America is instructive here. A century ago, newspapers wrote flagrantly racist articles, and lynchings were common. At said lynchings, often the entire town would turn out, as though for a carnival, to have their picture taken beneath the dangling, charred corpse of a black person. Body parts were collected as souvenirs and displayed in homes and businesses.

Now, I would hardly say that racism is no longer a problem in America, but if you look at this country in 2012, it’d be foolish to deny that race relations have advanced tremendously in the last century. Why do you think that is? Or, to put it another way, do you think it ever would’ve happened had legal equality not been mandated by government legislation?

Acceptance may be a long time coming, but it will be much longer coming if children are growing up in a world where gays cannot marry, and sodomy laws are still on the books and theoretically enforceable. But once the law grants them equality, general acceptance will eventually follow.

I would never put racism on the same bar as homosexual marriage. But is see your point. Perhaps you can see mine.

Same-sex marriage will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage – maybe not in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex marriage as the norm.

would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral – not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen – children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the ideal family need not include a father – a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births are to unwed mothers.

You see it’s just one more brick from the wall.

 

[Hokomai]

To those who do not believe, marriage consists entirely in the relationship between the individuals involved, and the formal registration or social recognition of this. To a believer, it means something else. Just what, of course, depends on the belief.

You can believe anything you wish about your own marriage without discriminating against anyone else. You can believe anything you like about anyone else’s marriage without discriminating against them. But if you act on these beliefs you may well discriminate. By discriminate I mean treating those things which should be treated equally as unequal. Of course, if you do not think these tings are equal, you have little choice but to discriminate if you act on your belief, just as someone who believes that women are inferior to men has little choice.

 

[fpt]

Am I discriminating if I believe my marriage has a greater value than homosexual couplings?

By definition, according to the natural law and the divine law, the term of couple means alterity and complementarity. Thus, two women or two males are not a couple.

Then, the truly love is possible than with one man and one woman (it is marital love).

In conclusion, two males form a duet and that is not a real, deep and natural love. The same reasonning for two females.

You can say that the homosexual duet:

Is not natural and true love;
Has no natural and supranatural value;

Marriage is only for one male with one female. That is not negotiable.