Catholics Resist Same-Sex 'Marriage'

[Teelynn]

As others have stated, there is an ordered plan in God’s idea of traditional marriage. The plan is to raise well adjusted children in a natural ordered and well adjusted home. It is the way He ordained things. It’s almost like telling God, “You didn’t really know what you were doing.” And to look at another facet of same sex marriage in today’s society, when and if that would become the norm, there is no way you can tell me that wouldn’t open up a whole avenue of unordered marriages. Sure as I am sitting here it would happen; the fight for polygamy; marriage within families, you name it, they would jump on the bandwagon.
Heck, some day one might be able to marry their dog if they are so inclined. A chaotic society is a society that is on it’s way out.
God’s whole idea I believe is to foster a healthy society. Unbenounced to some, rules are actually healthy. They are meant to save us from ourselves so to speak. Without God’s law, society would quickly spin into self annihalation. (which without coming off as a doomsdayer, I will say we are starting to head down that road already)

 

[John_R]

Who said anything about "Secular Relativist"s? What we see here are natural relations between people. Same gender unions happen all across nature, in our species we have to work through a series of societal laws as we were given those gifts. There is still much discussion about “Natural Law” as that line of theology is still evolving and not static. It was written for a different time and place.

Just because something occurs in nature does not make that occurrence good or right. Cannibalism (some Indian tribes) or human sacrifice (Aztecs), for example, were practiced on a large scale in some cultures. Would that, in your opinion, make it somehow ok? I sure hope not.

This is a good read on the topic.

The “Animal Homosexuality” Myth

God bless!

 

[Fitswimmer]

These are people of faith, stating what their faith has led them to believe about gay marriage-which they have every right to do. What they do NOT have a right to do is enshrine their religious belief into American law without a demonstrated societal harm that can be objectively verified.

 

[mangy_dog]

Many same-gender preference people adopt and raise a happy family together. Often they end up adopting some children that others do not want due to disabilities, etc… Many are spiritual and religious and this is one way they live out their faith. They can do it through the state until Catholic Charities revises their policies to allow it again (I pray every day this happens sooner than later).

“Same sex unions”, homosexual activity, “marriages” or whatever other euphemism is being used these days is not of God.

It is of the Devil. Insistence on decorating the issue with legality and mis-guided social routines is more of the same Luciferian ploy.

Same sex marriage is a social evil. There is nothing good about it. The children that get adopted by these people are in grave spiritual danger and exposed to a twisted, perverted view of what a family is. They grow up - made to believe the lie…accepting as right that which is wrong.

Vade Retro Satana!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That is because it is the Chicken and Egg discussion. There can be sin by being outside of marriage, but the marriage in any form is not even available in the first place, so then it is hard to be sinful. The legal ability to have a marriage means the institution will exist so they will not be in sin with a loving, lifelong, monogamous relationship with two people of the same gender. There is no sin for having same-gender preferences.

:whacky: oooooo-kaaaay then… did you realize you were posting on a Roman Catholic board?

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

My recommendations are on my webpage: URL: stobie.home.sprynet.com/work/marriage.htm

 

[edwest2]

The goal is the same goal as that stated in the 1960’s: Sex with anyone.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

This will not end with “Gay Marriage.” The goal is mix and match sexual relationships with anyone. Among the signers of this declaration is the familiar name of Feminist, Gloria Steinem.

A clear historical path can be traced to 1968. The destruction of the family. The destruction of Christian morality. The replacement? “We’re all just animals.”

Now I know where that statement came from.

However, as the Bible states, the battle is not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities and evil in high places.

Right now, as I write this, human beings are doing whatever they want around the world in the privacy of their own homes. They didn’t and don’t need anyone’s permission. But the current situation is written about in the Bible as well: “They will no longer endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers…”

I know homosexuals. I had a bisexual friend who came to Christ and ended her bisexual behavior. God gave man a mind and a will. Even for those who do not believe, He gave man a natural order that anyone can see.

God bless,
Ed

 

[peregrinus_WA]

The goal is the same goal as that stated in the 1960’s: Sex with anyone.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

This will not end with “Gay Marriage.” The goal is mix and match sexual relationships with anyone. Among the signers of this declaration is the familiar name of Feminist, Gloria Steinem.

A clear historical path can be traced to 1968. The destruction of the family. The destruction of Christian morality. The replacement? “We’re all just animals.”

Now I know where that statement came from.

However, as the Bible states, the battle is not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities and evil in high places.

Right now, as I write this, human beings are doing whatever they want around the world in the privacy of their own homes. They didn’t and don’t need anyone’s permission. But the current situation is written about in the Bible as well: “They will no longer endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers…”

I know homosexuals. I had a bisexual friend who came to Christ and ended her bisexual behavior. God gave man a mind and a will. Even for those who do not believe, He gave man a natural order that anyone can see.

God bless,
Ed

Only it is not anyone, it is also any age and any thing

 

[b_ulmen]

These are people of faith, stating what their faith has led them to believe about gay marriage-which they have every right to do. What they do NOT have a right to do is enshrine their religious belief into American law without a demonstrated societal harm that can be objectively verified.

That same logic need also apply to pro-homosexual activist. They must demonstrate a real and effective societal benefit before getting the government to enforce it’s beliefs. To date, IMHO, it’s not been done.

 

[Fitswimmer]

That same logic need also apply to pro-homosexual activist. They must demonstrate a real and effective societal benefit before getting the government to enforce it’s beliefs. To date, IMHO, it’s not been done.

I know gay couples who have wonderful, long term relationships. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they contribute to charities and they volunteer. Because they have no children, they have more time to give and usually more disposable income to donate.

How is that different from heterosexual couples without children? Or are they of no benefit to society either?

 

[9Choirs]

As a sidenote, I do find it quite interesting how some supposed Catholics who are in Full Communion with Rome are proponents of intrinsically disordered behaviour (homosexuality) that they are not given licence to be proponents of yet use the argument that not everyone is held accountable to moral law as not all people are Catholics and distort the fact that homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered.

Is not the moral law written in all our hearts and does not endorsing grave sin make one complicit in the grave sin being committed by the wrong doers? Fr Serpa seems to think so yet some supposedly faithful Catholics persist in such scandal and calling things ‘good and wonderuful’ (homosexuality) what the Church and common sense have declared to be ‘bad’…

I felt the need to mention this considering the numerous members who are Islam affiliated who espose many things contrary to Catholicism yet pretend to be Catholic in order to lead unsuspecting people astray. It seems that there are some people as well purporting to be Catholic too, yet their endorsements of intrisically disordered behaviour are a testament that they most likely are not in particualar when they have been kindly corrected by priests yet persist in their scandal.

Some food for thought…

Ave Maria

 

[John_R]

I know gay couples who have wonderful, long term relationships. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they contribute to charities and they volunteer. Because they have no children, they have more time to give and usually more disposable income to donate.

How is that different from heterosexual couples without children? Or are they of no benefit to society either?

It depends what your definition of “wonderful” means. A long term immoral relationship does not turn vice into virtue. Furthermore, I could almost say the same thing about mafia members or pedophiles who, on the side, contribute to charity, volunteer, etc. Heterosexual couples without children do not violate the natural order.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It depends what your definition of “wonderful” means. A long term immoral relationship does not turn vice into virtue. Furthermore, I could almost say the same thing about mafia members or pedophiles who, on the side, contribute to charity, volunteer, etc. Heterosexual couples without children do not violate the natural order.

The question wasn’t whether it was immoral or whether it violated the natural law. The question was do they contribute to society. In the case of mafia members and pedophiles, there is a clear detriment to society, according to civil law. In the case of the gay couples (who are not Catholic BTW) they are not harming society in any way. According to Catholic teaching they are harming their own souls, but they are not harming others in society as civil law sees it.

 

[He_Man]

What dangers? This is a editorial piece written to put fear on something which there is nothing to be afraid of. What California’s ruling will due is sow seeds of unity across the country. Marriage for different-gender people will not change one bit.

Remind me again why that which is holy would want to be in union with that which is evil?

 

[Crow]

I know gay couples who have wonderful, long term relationships. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they contribute to charities and they volunteer. Because they have no children, they have more time to give and usually more disposable income to donate.

How is that different from heterosexual couples without children? Or are they of no benefit to society either?

They are different. To deny the difference is to deny common sense; why, if they are the same, would they be respectively called homo vs hetero?

Although their respective situations are worthy of a dignified compasion (including the situation of homosexuals I would point out), they are all disctinctively different than that of homosexual unions.

1. Those who choose ‘not to have children’ should NOT get married; its that simple.
2. Those beyond child bearing years, or those who are sterile have a relationship that in principal is open to life, thus in principal may marry. their lack of being able to have children is due to their particular situation and not their choice of relationship.

The difference is this;

A heterosexual couple who cannot, for reasons beyond their control (including old age), bear children, are lacking something since their union in principal should be able to produce offsprings.

Homosexual couples are lacking nothing, even whole, they cannot bring a new life into the world.

In justice, the one who lacks something for the sake of terms beyond their control, cannot be held accountable for their lacking - they should be able to conceive but cant. Homosexual unions lack nothing, by default they cannot, nor were meant, to have children. They engage in their union but their union has nothing of a marriage which is devoted to ‘family life’ or devoted to ‘bringing children into the world’. One lacks, the other by nature cannot. Thus the two situations are completely different with different consequences one with respect to the other.

Homosexual unions, biologically cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage. Simple logic cannot dictate any other conclusion.

 

[Fitswimmer]

They are different. To deny the difference is to deny common sense; why, if they are the same, would they be respectively called homo vs hetero?

Although their respective situations are worthy of a dignified compasion (including the situation of homosexuals I would point out), they are all disctinctively different than that of homosexual unions.

1. Those who choose ‘not to have children’ should NOT get married; its that simple.
2. Those beyond child bearing years, or those who are sterile have a relationship that in principal is open to life, thus in principal may marry. their lack of being able to have children is due to their particular situation and not their choice of relationship.

The difference is this;

A heterosexual couple who cannot, for reasons beyond their control (including old age), bear children, are lacking something since their union in principal should be able to produce offsprings.

Homosexual couples are lacking nothing, even whole, they cannot bring a new life into the world.

In justice, the one who lacks something for the sake of terms beyond their control, cannot be held accountable for their lacking - they should be able to conceive but cant. Homosexual unions lack nothing, by default they cannot, nor were meant, to have children. They engage in their union but their union has nothing of a marriage which is devoted to ‘family life’ or devoted to ‘bringing children into the world’. One lacks, the other by nature cannot. Thus the two situations are completely different with different consequences one with respect to the other.

Homosexual unions, biologically cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage. Simple logic cannot dictate any other conclusion.

Where is anyone asking for biological equality? Where is the biological difference being denied?

 

[Crow]

Where is anyone asking for biological equality? Where is the biological difference being denied?

By asking the two to be regarded as equivalent. As stated, they cannot be held in the same light as a consequence of their biological difference.

It is not so much a clear statement claiming that there is no biological difference has been made, rather than a statement to this effect was made by default of ignoring and refusing to address the biological differences and their logical consequences.

 

[Fitswimmer]

By asking the two to be regarded as equivalent. As stated, they cannot be held in the same light as a consequence of their biological difference.

It is not so much a clear statement claiming that there is no biological difference has been made, rather than a statement to this effect was made by default of ignoring and refusing to address the biological differences and their logical consequences.

Equivilent under civil law, and equivilent in terms of insurance is not in any way saying that there is no biological difference.

The biological difference is that of attraction-the biological attraction of the homosexual is to his/her own gender vs the biological attraction of the heterosexual to the opposite gender. By definition that difference exists so I’m not surprised that it is not addressed, addressing it would be redundant.

 

[fix]

These are people of faith, stating what their faith has led them to believe about gay marriage-which they have every right to do. What they do NOT have a right to do is enshrine their religious belief into American law without a demonstrated societal harm that can be objectively verified.

It is a natural truth. It is objective. It is known from right reason. Why would we need “proof” that vice is wrong? What type of “proof”?

 

[Crow]

Equivilent under civil law, and equivilent in terms of insurance is not in any way saying that there is no biological difference.

The biological difference is that of attraction-the biological attraction of the homosexual is to his/her own gender vs the biological attraction of the heterosexual to the opposite gender. By definition that difference exists so I’m not surprised that it is not addressed, addressing it would be redundant.

The biological difference is not mere attraction, it is personified in the application of the attraction with the final consequence of being unable to produce life through sexual intercourse (based on the choices made while relying solely on attraction) and by defacto being unnatual. It is based on this self-evident difference that homosexual unions cannot and should be be encouraged - specially not by goverment and laws.

Government and laws have always been and should always be to legislate reproduction and make the citizens responsible for bringing a new life into the world; that is the secular purpose of marriage. To apply this to a relationship which is biologically and by definition incapable of producing life is to defy the ‘raison d’etre’ of marriage as a legal contract.