Changing the definition of marriage devalues my marriage!

[Nate13]

Fair enough, Nate. I’m exhausted so I’m quiting for now, but I’ve honestly enjoyed the debate. I’ve got like 7 of you on one me at this point. Perhaps I’ll assemble a posse and come back.

Know that at the core of your arguments, I don’t really disagree with you, but rather was trying to challenge you to consider things differently. And look, I respect your feelings on the matter.

I think the hardest part about these debates is that they are based on feelings peppered with a little religion and perhaps a longing for a simpler time.

At any rate, all the debate in the world is probably futile. It seems the state of affairs is heading in one direction.

God bless.

I will fully admit that I am compelled to care about the subject as much as I do because of my religion. However I believe there are many good non-religious arguments for opposing gay marriage out there. I also truly believe the number one reason gay advocates want gay marriage accepted by the government is because they believe that will lead to a general acceptance among the populace and specifically among religious. I believe this based on what occurred when divorce became prominent. How many Christian churches still remain opposed to allowing someone who is divorced to remarry in their churches?

 

[Conor7]

I will fully admit that I am compelled to care about the subject as much as I do because of my religion. However I believe there are many good non-religious arguments for opposing gay marriage out there. I also truly believe the number one reason gay advocates want gay marriage accepted by the government is because they believe that will lead to a general acceptance among the populace and specifically among religious. I believe this based on what occurred when divorce became prominent. How many Christian churches still remain opposed to allowing someone who is divorced to remarry in their churches?

Ha! I promised myself I wasn’t going to get sucked back in! I certainly see your point.

My solution has aways been to abolish civil marriage. It seems the word marriage is really the issue. I say give everyone a civil union, if your religious institution chooses to acknowledge this union, then you can have a marriage. Athiests, gays, Scientologists, Methodists, you get a civil union. Just kidding, Methodists can get married, but I strongly urge against it.

Perhaps it’s symantics, but it seems like the most equitable compromise. Thoughts?

You write: “I also truly believe the number one reason gay advocates want gay marriage accepted by the government is because they believe that will lead to a general acceptance among the populace …”

I think this is exactly right, and I don’t disagree with you at all. Something to chew on though: Why wouldn’t someone want their relationship acknowledged by society? I don’t know if you’re married, Nate, but I think you would be saddened if society refused to acknowledge the significance of the bond between you and your wife-- the significance of that relationship to you. What if I refused to call her your wife, and instead referred to her only as your girlfriend? How’s your friend, Nate? Your special, opposite-sex friend? HAHA.

 

[Nate13]

Ha! I promised myself I wasn’t going to get sucked back in! I certainly see your point.

My solution has aways been to abolish civil marriage. It seems the word marriage is really the issue. I say give everyone a civil union, if your religious institution chooses to acknowledge this union, then you can have a marriage. Athiests, gays, Scientologists, Methodists, you get a civil union. Just kidding, Methodists can get married, but I strongly urge against it.

Perhaps it’s symantics, but it seems like the most equitable compromise. Thoughts?

You write: “I also truly believe the number one reason gay advocates want gay marriage accepted by the government is because they believe that will lead to a general acceptance among the populace …”

I think this is exactly right, and I don’t disagree with you at all. Something to chew on though: Why wouldn’t someone want their relationship acknowledged by society? I don’t know if you’re married, Nate, but I think you would be saddened if society refused to acknowledge the significance of the bond between you and your wife-- the significance of that relationship to you. What if I refused to call her your wife, and instead referred to her only as your girlfriend? How’s your friend, Nate? Your special, opposite-sex friend? HAHA.

The only way for them to make any progress in changing the way society views them is to change religion. While much of the populace may be alright with allowing them to marry, they will get very mad when the fight comes to their church and they end up in arguments about whether committing homosexual acts are sins and what the bible says. It appears to me that we can only expect more of the same with regard to twisting bible verses to fit whatever current culture deems is right.

I learned along time ago to put society in its proper place with respect to its opinion of me. I probably received more flax in high school for not having ever dated any women, than the couple homosexuals we had in our school. I was content in my decision to not date in high school because in my mind it made no sense when I knew I was going to go to college. I did not wish to get married until after college, and was not interested in being in a 4+ year relationship with a woman before I got married and all the temptations that would go along with that. So please don’t try to appeal to any sense of empathy I would have for them for not being “accepted”. Their need to be accepted only shows their insecurity in their beliefs or the malicious intent to try and fundamentally change society and invoke moral relativism.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The only way for them to make any progress in changing the way society views them is to change religion. While much of the populace may be alright with allowing them to marry, they will get very mad when the fight comes to their church and they end up in arguments about whether committing homosexual acts are sins and what the bible says. It appears to me that we can only expect more of the same with regard to twisting bible verses to fit whatever current culture deems is right.

I learned along time ago to put society in its proper place with respect to its opinion of me. I probably received more flax in high school for not having ever dated any women, than the couple homosexuals we had in our school. I was content in my decision to not date in high school because in my mind it made no sense when I knew I was going to go to college. I did not wish to get married until after college, and was not interested in being in a 4+ year relationship with a woman before I got married and all the temptations that would go along with that. So please don’t try to appeal to any sense of empathy I would have for them for not being “accepted”. Their need to be accepted only shows their insecurity in their beliefs or the malicious intent to try and fundamentally change society and invoke moral relativism.

 

[mro]

Let’s walk a very fine line here when we address homosexuals…

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Let’s not violate the Catechism boys and girls

While I do support traditional marriage (although I there are days when I question why I do when my own girlfriend was snatched away from me when I was outed as a homosexual)…

 

[Elizabeth502]

So please don’t try to appeal to any sense of empathy I would have for them for not being “accepted”. Their need to be accepted only shows their insecurity in their beliefs or the malicious intent to try and fundamentally change society and invoke moral relativism.

Well, whether or not it’s a reflection of insecurity, some insecurity is well-founded, Nate.

For example, I have been in non-social situations which included persons who were gay, and their sense of fear as to being accepted was palpable on their faces and in their body language. (Not all situations; I’m referring to a select few of those.) When they saw that I immediately accepted them warmly (didn’t feel or act tense or hostile), their entire demeanor relaxed. The point is, when you do go into a new setting and you are (one is) unsure of a reaction, because you know that your position, or your lifestyle, or your circumstances, are controversial, it is natural to feel tentative. It’s not so much a need to have some kind of formal declaration of acceptance made to you; rather, it’s more important merely to be treated casually as another equal human being, as opposed to being insulted, rejected, criticized, or suspiciously questioned — that kind of thing. (treated differently)

I do agree that being accepted as a human being (in that above way) does not imply that society must accept whatever other groups, causes, etc. “demand” or assume is “theirs” by some kind of “right” (beyond what are the universal rights of all of us).

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I agree with the OP. Why? I can’t say it better than Eve Tushnet did here:

Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving, dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all these things more than any institution does or could.

Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific, fundamental needs: children’s need for a father, a couple’s need for a promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise), young people’s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men’s (and women’s, but mostly men’s) need for a fruitful rather than destructive channel for sexual desire – a way of uniting eros and responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs of opposite sex couples.

So what? Okay, maybe marriage didn’t develop in response to same-sex couples, but c’mon, how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your marriage?

There are three basic reasons to think 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.

The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could write a history of American culture without noting how much of it began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV shows like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” to subtler infusions of “camp” humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority culture.

The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic adults’ sexual and romantic partnerships isn’t new – it’s the same “me generation” worldview that produced “fatherless America.”

And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage by contrast, 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 in 2000 were to unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not the norm – that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren’t heroic, we must not be called to marry. Any one of these changes would be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the “sexual revolution.”

Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage, because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the “opposite sexes” to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.

 

[John21652]

Let’s walk a very fine line here when we address homosexuals…

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Let’s not violate the Catechism boys and girls

While I do support traditional marriage (although I there are days when I question why I do when my own girlfriend was snatched away from me when I was outed as a homosexual)…

And what exactly do you mean by “unjust discrimination”?

From here -

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.

From what you have posted, someone obviously reacted against the idea, if not the practice, of homosexuality and so your girlfriend was “snatched away”. So, in what way was that “unjust discrimination”, particularly in light of the above quote?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I will stand by God’s Word. Homosexual advances are a product of our sins against God. Like Our God says. Where is that passage?

Birth control, free sex, the lack of belief in the Church, the revolt inside the Church., divorce and remarriage. All this has brought upon us this abomination of man marrying man, and women with women.

where is that passage again?

 

[Conor7]

Well, whether or not it’s a reflection of insecurity, some insecurity is well-founded, Nate.

For example, I have been in non-social situations which included persons who were gay, and their sense of fear as to being accepted was palpable on their faces and in their body language. (Not all situations; I’m referring to a select few of those.) When they saw that I immediately accepted them warmly (didn’t feel or act tense or hostile), their entire demeanor relaxed. The point is, when you do go into a new setting and you are (one is) unsure of a reaction, because you know that your position, or your lifestyle, or your circumstances, are controversial, it is natural to feel tentative. It’s not so much a need to have some kind of formal declaration of acceptance made to you; rather, it’s more important merely to be treated casually as another equal human being, as opposed to being insulted, rejected, criticized, or suspiciously questioned — that kind of thing. (treated differently)

I do agree that being accepted as a human being (in that above way) does not imply that society must accept whatever other groups, causes, etc. “demand” or assume is “theirs” by some kind of “right” (beyond what are the universal rights of all of us).

I for one appreciate your kind and level-headed insight.

 

[mro]

And what exactly do you mean by “unjust discrimination”?

From here -

From what you have posted, someone obviously reacted against the idea, if not the practice, of homosexuality and so your girlfriend was “snatched away”. So, in what way was that “unjust discrimination”, particularly in light of the above quote?

Hey John your violating the Catechism!!! It came from the Catechism!!!

 

[John21652]

I will stand by God’s Word. Homosexual advances are a product of our sins against God. Like Our God says. Where is that passage?

Birth control, free sex, the lack of belief in the Church, the revolt inside the Church., divorce and remarriage. All this has brought upon us this abomination of man marrying man, and women with women.

where is that passage again?

Try this document,
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

Signed by one Cardinal Ratzinger and authorised by one JP II.

It outlines the entire moral regression caused by the fall of in respect for human sexuality.

And most of us don’t need a cardinal or a Pope to understand what has happened.

 

[Odell]

I agree with the OP. Why? I can’t say it better than Eve Tushnet did here:

Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving, dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all these things more than any institution does or could.

Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific, fundamental needs: children’s need for a father, a couple’s need for a promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise), young people’s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men’s (and women’s, but mostly men’s) need for a fruitful rather than destructive channel for sexual desire – a way of uniting eros and responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs of opposite sex couples.

So what? Okay, maybe marriage didn’t develop in response to same-sex couples, but c’mon, how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your marriage?

There are three basic reasons to think 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.

The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could write a history of American culture without noting how much of it began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV shows like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” to subtler infusions of “camp” humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority culture.

The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic adults’ sexual and romantic partnerships isn’t new – it’s the same “me generation” worldview that produced “fatherless America.”

And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage by contrast, 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 in 2000 were to unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not the norm – that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren’t heroic, we must not be called to marry. Any one of these changes would be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the “sexual revolution.”

Well put! Is this last part basically saying it would make marriage not the norm? I think could be worded a little better

Maybe that as time passes marriage will become less significant. Because those who sought homosexual marriage will no longer seek to marry. I say that because as soon as it does pass you will have a flood gate of homosexuals getting married. How many of those will be based on anything other than strict emotion? Their marriages will not last and soon enough marriage will have no meaning.

Good point but still needs some tweaking before I’m able to convey this.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Try this document,
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

Signed by one Cardinal Ratzinger and authorised by one JP II.

It outlines the entire moral regression caused by the fall of in respect for human sexuality.

And most of us don’t need a cardinal or a Pope to understand what has happened.

Yes. but most of all what God says is coming through right before our eyes.

 

[Nate13]

I for one appreciate your kind and level-headed insight.

My comment was directed towards your assertions that homosexuals want their lifestyles to be accepted. I have no problem associating with people who are homosexual but if asked whether I believe their sexual lives are acceptable I will respond with a “no”. My college years weren’t too long ago and I was around a lot of people who were living incredibly sinful lives on a daily basis. I am fully aware that its possible to have relationships with people and enjoy hanging out with people who are doing things that I believe are wrong in other parts of their lives. However when I asked will respond with the truth. I don’t attempt to hide my beliefs.

 

[Nate13]

Well, whether or not it’s a reflection of insecurity, some insecurity is well-founded, Nate.

For example, I have been in non-social situations which included persons who were gay, and their sense of fear as to being accepted was palpable on their faces and in their body language. (Not all situations; I’m referring to a select few of those.) When they saw that I immediately accepted them warmly (didn’t feel or act tense or hostile), their entire demeanor relaxed. The point is, when you do go into a new setting and you are (one is) unsure of a reaction, because you know that your position, or your lifestyle, or your circumstances, are controversial, it is natural to feel tentative. It’s not so much a need to have some kind of formal declaration of acceptance made to you; rather, it’s more important merely to be treated casually as another equal human being, as opposed to being insulted, rejected, criticized, or suspiciously questioned — that kind of thing. (treated differently)

I do agree that being accepted as a human being (in that above way) does not imply that society must accept whatever other groups, causes, etc. “demand” or assume is “theirs” by some kind of “right” (beyond what are the universal rights of all of us).

Haha I should have been clearer. I meant to say:

"So please don’t try to appeal to any sense of empathy I would have for them for not having their lifestyle be “accepted”. Their need to have the way they choose to live be accepted only shows their insecurity in their belief that it is right or the malicious intent to try and fundamentally change society and invoke moral relativism.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Well put! Is this last part basically saying it would make marriage not the norm? I think could be worded a little better

Maybe that as time passes marriage will become less significant. Because those who sought homosexual marriage will no longer seek to marry. I say that because as soon as it does pass you will have a flood gate of homosexuals getting married. How many of those will be based on anything other than strict emotion? Their marriages will not last and soon enough marriage will have no meaning.

Good point but still needs some tweaking before I’m able to convey this.

Eve Tushnet had this paragraph at the end. Did you see it?

Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage, because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the “opposite sexes” to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Haha I should have been clearer. I meant to say:

"So please don’t try to appeal to any sense of empathy I would have for them for not having their lifestyle be “accepted”. Their need to have the way they choose to live be accepted only shows their insecurity in their belief that it is right or the malicious intent to try and fundamentally change society and invoke moral relativism.

True, Nate. Nor do I “accept” the lifestyle. (i.e., state untruthfully that I approve of it). But let’s be realistic: How often is it necessary to “take a stand”? Thankfully, I find that most gays are not “in your face” with regard to demanding to know how a particular individual assesses that lifestyle. Nor, i.m.o., is it good manners for them to demand such acquiescence. It’s not even fair (i.m.o.) to demand that a parent “accept” such a lifestyle of one’s son or daughter, even though it’s totally natural that virtually all gays would want not just parental acceptance but parental approval.

I’ll only share the way I personally have dealt with the necessary encounters with it that come with modern living: I don’t discuss it, because 99.9% of the time no one ever asks me to. I would think it bad manners if gays asked me about my sexual history , so “do unto others,” right? Treating these couples with the same civility with which I treat heterosexual couples should not be a moral crisis – again, unless some kind of confrontation is initiated on their part regarding my opinion of their lifestyle, or a controversial public topic, such as gay “marriage.” By treating (yes, even the couple) respectfully is something I don’t translate as approving of their lifestyle as couples. I think of them as two individuals. Treating them rudely or with rejection will not accomplish (I would think) a moral reflection on their part, about their lifestyle.

That is not to say that I do not relate to the sense of personal discomfort, with regard to the aspect of lifestyle – particularly if that lifestyle overlaps somehow into my own, or my personal space. But I have to say that I am also quite uncomfortable with heterosexual cohabitation, regardless of how apparently prevalent it is today. I cannot affirmatively “approve” of that, either.

Hope that makes some sense.

 

[John21652]

Hey John your violating the Catechism!!! It came from the Catechism!!!

Hey mro,
I know!
I’ve read it.
Lots of times.

You made a silly and very wrong statement to avoid answering my question.
The question was* “And what exactly do you mean by “unjust discrimination”?”*

See the fifth word from the start of the sentence? It is the word “you”.
I was asking you, mro, how you would define unjust discrimination.
The Catechism doesn’t define unjust discrimination.

Now, perhaps you’d like to come back and try to answer the question.

Now here’s another question for you: how is it that me asking you to define something the Catechism doesn’t define is “violating the catechism”?

You will either have to show me the errors of my ways, or bite the bullet and apologise for making false accusations.

Your turn.

 

[Alindawyl]

I’ll only share the way I personally have dealt with the necessary encounters with it that come with modern living: I don’t discuss it, because 99.9% of the time no one ever asks me to. I would think it bad manners if gays asked me about my sexual history , so “do unto others,” right? Treating these couples with the same civility with which I treat heterosexual couples should not be a moral crisis – again, unless some kind of confrontation is initiated on their part regarding my opinion of their lifestyle, or a controversial public topic, such as gay “marriage.” By treating (yes, even the couple) respectfully is something I don’t translate as approving of their lifestyle as couples. I think of them as two individuals. Treating them rudely or with rejection will not accomplish (I would think) a moral reflection on their part, about their lifestyle.

That is not to say that I do not relate to the sense of personal discomfort, with regard to the aspect of lifestyle – particularly if that lifestyle overlaps somehow into my own, or my personal space. But I have to say that I am also quite uncomfortable with heterosexual cohabitation, regardless of how apparently prevalent it is today. I cannot affirmatively “approve” of that, either.