Imagine if there was a proposition with the intent of affirming the traditional legal definition of Christianity, just to provide legitimacy to the major Christian denomination, and effectively marginalizing all the others. I would have suspicions about the real intentions behind such proposition.
What part is contrary to the teaching of the Church? I think I made it clear I do not support the campaign for gay marriage. Is it separation of Church and State you don’t like?
It has nothing to do with “separation of Church and State”…which is not in the Constitution by the way…
Not exactly. They don’t have the same standing. “All men are created equal” is what the Declaration of Independence says, but this is includes another assumption (which the founders would have understood)…
Genesis 2 said:
Arguments against same-sex marriage are nearly identical to those used to condemn “inter-racial” marriage. Discrimination against both have been justified by tradition based on “natural law”, and the opponents of both types of marriage have used the Bible to justify legislated discrimination. Both have attempted to add to the Constitution words governing which types of marriage the state may sanction, yet both claim their efforts to exclude certain types of citizens from marriage are somehow “non-discriminatory”. The parallel is uncomfortably close, as anti-miscegenation laws have only recently been repealed across the United States.Not exactly. They don’t have the same standing. “All men are created equal” is what the Declaration of Independence says, but this is includes another assumption (which the founders would have understood)…
This is still true of an interracial couple. It is not true of a same sex couple. There is nothing contrary to natural law about an interracial marriage.
:yawn:
Not quite. According to the Bible, polygamy was quite the thing more many centuries. Some still hold to it. And in other cultures we see such things as the “walking marriage” where a woman accepts a lover at nights, who then departs in the morning to work in his mother’s household. He supports his sister’s children, not the children of his lover. There are lots of variations of human sexual and romantic relationships which would pass as marriage if you consider their stability over time.
If you spare some time to read the comparisons posed on that link you’ll realize they are not far fetched. There are uncanny similarities between both cases.:yawn:
They are wrong…whereas someone may have mistakenly tried to base an argument against interracial marriage on natural law, there is none.
The rest of what you quoted is equivalent to “blah, blah, blah.” Bottom line? Marriage is the union of a man and woman according to the Bible and according to societal norms existing for many, many years in just about every culture. The interracial-homosexual link has no merit whatsoever and is an absolute insult to those who fought hard to overturn racial discrimination. The internet link you provided isn’t even an authoritative source.
Don’t misrepresent me! I made it clear that I am not involved in the campaign for gay marriage. What I am for is the protection of children – which conservative Catholics are apparently not interested in as long as abortion is ruled out. I would certainly campaign against forcibly removing adopted children from the homes of their gay or lesbian parents. I would certainly campaign for making sure such children are equally protected under the law.
I didn’t misrepresent you. You said…
I then demonstrated that your stance is clearly against Church teaching, and stated that you support the campaign for gay marriage under a different name (i.e. civil union). That isn’t misrepresentation, and I stand by what I said.
Not quite? My post had nothing to do with polygamy. I would be against polygamy, as is the Church, but I recognize that biblically and historically it is licit. It is still the union of man and woman though.
If you want to interpret “civil union” as “marriage” that is your prerogative. I don’t regard civil unions as sacramental marriages, but they do accord protection to the children of the partners.
Right…but the Church considers it equivalent, so it is more than my “prerogative.” It shouldn’t matter to you what I think, but I suspect you generally listen to what the Church teaches. If you don’t, then that is par for the course in Catholicism in this country.
What about serial polygamy? Regrettably, lots of Catholics practice that.
I think you mean “serial monogamy,” which is the euphemism people use for fornication with one partner after another. Yes…that is a sin, and I’m not in favor of it. What is your point?
No, I mean serial polygamy: people who have more than one spouse but in sequence. That is, if you consider marriage to be “until death do us part.”
Oh…okay, thanks for clarifying.
No. But it is a sham when a campaign in “Defense of Marriage” includes divorced people working for it.