Article series on same-sex marriage

[tws]

I recently completed three articles on the issue of same-sex marriage. I posted them on my Facebook account and received a ton of responses, which I integrated into the final, revised versions. I’m only sharing in this forum to make the most of the effort. Hopefully it is enlightened reading for some of you.

They appear in reverse order at: terryshood.blogspot.com/

 

[fermat]

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 13:13[/BIBLEDRB]

Good insights. Looks like you are doing something right…

 

[ahs]

Very brave of you…and the articles are good. I posted something about homosexuality on my facebook once and it cost me a couple “friends”. But at least 1 that debated with me said she’d at least give it some thought from my point of view since we are both Catholic.

Even if you just reach 1 person in an effort to proclaim Truth…it is an effort well worth it.

 

[sw85]

Just curious but where’d you pick up these “friends”? The sociology department at Big Name State University?

 

[tws]

My high school and college friends have taken different paths than I have over the last 20 years. At the moment I am on the bad boy list, but I figure after some time passes they will resume talking to me.

 

[sw85]

My high school and college friends have taken different paths than I have over the last 20 years. At the moment I am on the bad boy list, but I figure after some time passes they will resume talking to me.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that, my friend. There’s a lot about the modern epistemology which most Catholics misunderstand (which is why we’re losing the battle for the world). You will probably have had some friendships damaged permanently because of this.

 

[tws]

You may be right. My sister-in-law is mad at me and I can see her holding a grudge for a very long time. It is hard to know what appropriate action to take to do my part of maintaining peace.

 

[ahs]

You may be right. My sister-in-law is mad at me and I can see her holding a grudge for a very long time. It is hard to know what appropriate action to take to do my part of maintaining peace.

HA! Just let it go (the pressure of maintaining peace). We aren’t caleld to maintain peace, we are called to proclaim the Truth charitably, while giving just admonition, etc…

Just do what is right and just, and leave your door open for communication. But don’t force anything and don’t compromise Truth.

 

[sw85]

You may be right. My sister-in-law is mad at me and I can see her holding a grudge for a very long time. It is hard to know what appropriate action to take to do my part of maintaining peace.

As ahs said, your obligation to the truth is of paramount importance. Keep speaking it.

Those of your “friends” with the temerity to insult and degrade you should be corrected vigorously. There is literally no good argument for gay “marriage” and you should not hesitate to shame them for their unreason.

 

[tws]

Wow, thanks for the uplift. I think the challenge is communicating truth with compassion. It is harder to do in writing than in person, at least for me.

 

[manualman]

One of the key reasons we keep losing this debate is because christians in this country already are using a fatally flawed definition of marriage. Look around at our culture today and see it. Marriage is unconsciously defined thus: “Marriage is the union of a man and woman who love each other, wish to celebrate that love they feel for each other publicly and seek to make that love last for the rest of their lives.”

This definition is so shallow that there really ISN’T any compelling reason to limit it to a man and woman. Why NOT apply it to two men? Opposing such a change indeed seems mean spirited and cruel.

But how did we get such a lousy definition of marriage? Marriage once meant lot more than that. Once, it was “Marriage is the loving, self-sacrificial union of a man and woman who give their very selves to one another in a union so self giving in nature that, like the God in whom we are created in the image of, it is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new life.”

See the difference? Government didn’t get involved in marriage because people like it or have some ‘right’ to it. They got involved originally out of a recognition that marriage is the foundation civilization is built on. Without it (the real kind), our culture can’t be sustained, we slowly lapse into a selfish savagery. Notice any of THAT lately?

In short, we need to stop defending bad definitions of marriage and start defending the real thing. But to do so, we need to start living the real thing, which means seeing children as a blessing rather than a burden. As long as christians live out the shallow definition of marriage, the culture will see through us. We’ll turn the tide when WE start living the deeper meaning of marriage and the rotten fruit of the larger culture’s degenerated version of marriage becomes undeniable.

 

[tws]

You raise some good points. Thanks.

One of the key reasons we keep losing this debate is because christians in this country already are using a fatally flawed definition of marriage. Look around at our culture today and see it. Marriage is unconsciously defined thus: “Marriage is the union of a man and woman who love each other, wish to celebrate that love they feel for each other publicly and seek to make that love last for the rest of their lives.”

This definition is so shallow that there really ISN’T any compelling reason to limit it to a man and woman. Why NOT apply it to two men? Opposing such a change indeed seems mean spirited and cruel.

But how did we get such a lousy definition of marriage? Marriage once meant lot more than that. Once, it was “Marriage is the loving, self-sacrificial union of a man and woman who give their very selves to one another in a union so self giving in nature that, like the God in whom we are created in the image of, it is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new life.”

See the difference? Government didn’t get involved in marriage because people like it or have some ‘right’ to it. They got involved originally out of a recognition that marriage is the foundation civilization is built on. Without it (the real kind), our culture can’t be sustained, we slowly lapse into a selfish savagery. Notice any of THAT lately?

In short, we need to stop defending bad definitions of marriage and start defending the real thing. But to do so, we need to start living the real thing, which means seeing children as a blessing rather than a burden. As long as christians live out the shallow definition of marriage, the culture will see through us. We’ll turn the tide when WE start living the deeper meaning of marriage and the rotten fruit of the larger culture’s degenerated version of marriage becomes undeniable.

 

[Rock_Happy]

The appeal of using the Bible to deny civil rights is obvious. It is a time honored practice. But the sweep of history is toward toward the rejection of such practices. You can rationalize your views however you like, and of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but you are not going to influence the sweep of history much in that way. It is simply a generational issue at this point. Once the current older generation is no longer voting, the numbers will change enough that support of same sex marriage will be pretty much universal. Racism was similar. Discrimination against women was similar. This is known as progress. You are not going to change it.

One definition of mental health is the ability to adapt to change. Consider that.

 

[razredge]

I recently completed three articles on the issue of same-sex marriage. I posted them on my Facebook account and received a ton of responses, which I integrated into the final, revised versions. I’m only sharing in this forum to make the most of the effort. Hopefully it is enlightened reading for some of you.

They appear in reverse order at: terryshood.blogspot.com/

Good work - don’t let other people change your mind - they are motivated by emotions rather than rational arguments.

I have looked into this at some depth and have to say that there are no good rational arguments to allow gay marriage without also allowing every other type of relationship conceivable.

 

[tws]

The appeal of using the Bible to deny civil rights is obvious. It is a time honored practice. But the sweep of history is toward toward the rejection of such practices. You can rationalize your views however you like, and of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but you are not going to influence the sweep of history much in that way. It is simply a generational issue at this point. Once the current older generation is no longer voting, the numbers will change enough that support of same sex marriage will be pretty much universal. Racism was similar. Discrimination against women was similar. This is known as progress. You are not going to change it.

One definition of mental health is the ability to adapt to change. Consider that.

You did not read the articles. I did not use the Bible at all. Not one quote or allusion.

 

[tws]

Good work - don’t let other people change your mind - they are motivated by emotions rather than rational arguments.

I have looked into this at some depth and have to say that there are no good rational arguments to allow gay marriage without also allowing every other type of relationship conceivable.

Thanks!

 

[Rock_Happy]

You did not read the articles. I did not use the Bible at all. Not one quote or allusion.

You are correct, the titles said enough. Reading the articles just now proved that impression to be correct. I disagree with your train of thought in most instances. For example, that same gender marriage implies a progression toward incestuous relationships. Just no support for that assumption.

I agree with you that gay marriage might open the door eventually to poly marriages. Time well tell. But this is not related to gender and our current understanding of sexuality. I guess polyamorous marriage would be a bit more biblical, in the OT sense, anyway.

As Judge Walker pointed out, there was once a legal distinction in marriage between the respective duties of each spouse based on gender. That is no longer true under the law.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As Judge Walker pointed out, there was once a legal distinction in marriage between the respective duties of each spouse based on gender. That is no longer true under the law.

Judge Walker repeatedly argued irrelevancies in his decision. Gender roles are apart from radical (brain-controlled, biology controlled) differences between the sexes. Role assignment, role “play,” role experimentation, and lack of distinction between roles – none of that has anything to do with the way men, vs. women, cognate, prioritize, value, orient themselves, conceive of themselves, imagine, communicate, and generally are programmed to behave and think differently from each other.

Judge Walker spent pages and pages creating and then destroying straw men with regard to marriage.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Way to stand up for the Truth .

 

[tws]

The appeal of using the Bible to deny civil rights is obvious. It is a time honored practice. But the sweep of history is toward toward the rejection of such practices. You can rationalize your views however you like, and of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but you are not going to influence the sweep of history much in that way. It is simply a generational issue at this point. Once the current older generation is no longer voting, the numbers will change enough that support of same sex marriage will be pretty much universal. Racism was similar. Discrimination against women was similar. This is known as progress. You are not going to change it.

One definition of mental health is the ability to adapt to change. Consider that.

Is the following scenario the kind of progress you also advocate? To be mentally healthy, adaptive, should we also welcome… threesomes? (you have to sit through an ad before the trailer for the movie, “3”)