Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Did you hear Melissa Ethridge's comments?

[Lee_M]

Gee, and all this time I thought we had an intellect, free will and a sense of humor that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

That’s what I thought. I guess since dogs eat their own poop, we should too.

 

[siamesecat]

(blinking).

Do you know what the Catholic Church means by the term “natural law?” It doesn’t mean the “laws of nature” or the “law of the jungle” or anything of the kind. “Nature” isn’t the same thing as “natural law.”

So if natural moral law means knowing something is wrong inherently - as in most people are born knowing going around hurting people for no reason is wrong, how does that mean gay marriage is against natural moral law? Not everyone just grows up seeing gay people and going “wow that’s wrong” as someone would seeing someone decapitated for the first time. Gay people probably grow up with it feeling very right to them.

 

[Gamera]

So if natural moral law means knowing something is wrong inherently - as in most people are born knowing going around hurting people for no reason is wrong, how does that mean gay marriage is against natural moral law? Not everyone just grows up seeing gay people and going “wow that’s wrong” as someone would seeing someone decapitated for the first time. Gay people probably grow up with it feeling very right to them.

“The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.” – CCC 1960.

 

[maggiemay2u]

How are they equal? They can’t marry the person they love and want to create a family with. How is that equal? They have equal protection as individuals as found in the Constitution. They can love whomever they wish. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an aberration of the norm, either through nature or nurture. Not all aberrations have to be accommodated or Stevie Wonder would be driving in the Indy 500.

So you’re saying that equally loving parents who are gay aren’t as good parents? It takes much longer and it’s much harder for a gay couple to adopt, so the love would be overwhelming in these situations. How would that be bad parenting?
I think there will have to be studies of at least 100 years to determine the long term and generational benefits or damage. To simply open the floodgates is folly.

But if a gay woman is with another woman, she hasn’t failed pair bonding, she’s just achieved it slightly differently than the average straight couple.
Again, the jury is still out, IMHO. Long term studies have never been completed. Studies of one or even two generations will not provide conclusive evidence, one way or another.

 

[cristininha]

I don’t understand. When did Catholicism ever try to “monopolize the meaning of the word marriage?”

And the phrase “natural law” is not the same thing as the word “nature.” Do you think the phrase “natural high” means the same thing as the word “nature?” As Mark Twain said, the difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between a lighning bolt and a lightning bug.

The real meaning of marriage and nature are not the only distortions being used to manipulate thought and justify segregation and oppression. There are many. The meaning of sodomite has also been distorted. It was originally only a demonym or gentilic word.

 

[cristininha]

Yup. I recently read a gay rights activist’s quote that Obama’s inclusion of Rev. Rick Warren at his inauguration will make gays feel like “we have no place at your table.” So, you don’t want conservative Christians to have a place at that same table? So much for “inclusion.”

David Duke and Thomas Robb are also conservative Christians. I bet many African-Americans would feel deeply unconfortable if they were invited to deliver speeches at any presidential inauguration, let alone share a place at the same table with them. Who knows if they’re going to mention the inconvenient and radical belief that God created the races to be separate…

 

[Holly3278]

Gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do. They can marry the opposite sex whenever they want!

 

[cristininha]

Gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do. They can marry the opposite sex whenever they want!

So did Mildred Loving. She had the same right to marry a person of her own race whenever she wanted. But she wanted to marry a person of a different race. Hence Loving v. Virginia.

*Mildred Loving issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision. Her statement concluded:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.*

Excerpt in italics (source): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Loving

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The real meaning of marriage and nature are not the only distortions being used to manipulate thought and justify segregation and oppression. There are many. The meaning of sodomite has also been distorted. It was originally only a demonym or gentilic word.

The meaning of any word is the thought communication associated with the word. Repeated pointed outin this thread - Men and Women marry without permission

David Duke and Thomas Robb are also conservative Christians. I bet many African-Americans would feel deeply unconfortable if they were invited to deliver speeches at any presidential inauguration, let alone share a place at the same table with them. Who knows if they’re going to mention the inconvenient and radical belief that God created the races to be separate…

looking for some extreme ground? how about addressing the issues in the thread (please)

So did Mildred Loving. She had the same right to marry a person of her own race whenever she wanted. But she wanted to marry a person of a different race. Hence Loving v. Virginia…

Actually they challenged a law restricting a “white and non-white marriage” which could have oppressed them should they Naturally Marry, and thus the difference. Mildred could be a wife without civil permission; Richard could be a husband without civil permission. Their issue was unjust civil persecution. So what unjust civil persecution are SSAs facing? Answer that honestly and you may find help from this same group. That is the problem;- there is no problem.

 

[Gamera]

The real meaning of marriage and nature are not the only distortions being used to manipulate thought and justify segregation and oppression. There are many. The meaning of sodomite has also been distorted. It was originally only a demonym or gentilic word.

“Segregation?” “Oppression?” What the heck are you talking about? Gays and straights possess exactly the same rights in our country. Your assertion is an insult to those who truly have suffered segregation and oppression.

 

[Gamera]

So did Mildred Loving. She had the same right to marry a person of her own race whenever she wanted. But she wanted to marry a person of a different race. Hence Loving v. Virginia.

The two situations are nothing alike. Mildred Loving was being unjustly prevented from entering into a marriage. A union between two men or between two women is not a marriage.

What a slap in the face this comparision is to African Americans.

 

[Gamera]

Gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do. They can marry the opposite sex whenever they want!

Exactly. But the Thought Police want to give the word “marriage” an Orwellian Newspeak definition.

Hmm, wait. Was it the Thought Police that re-defined words to suit the daily political agenda, or was it the Ministry of Truth? I’d better re-read “1984” so that I can brush up on the gay rights extremists’ tactics.

 

[Gamera]

The real meaning of marriage and nature are not the only distortions being used to manipulate thought and justify segregation and oppression. There are many. The meaning of sodomite has also been distorted. It was originally only a demonym or gentilic word.

Which is a “distortion” and “manipulation?”

1. To say that the word “marriage” means exactly what it has meant in every culture throughout human history; or
2. To suddenly decree that the word “marriage” no longer means what every culture in human history has used it to mean, but rather, now means something different which better suits today’s political mood.

 

[Erik1978]

So did Mildred Loving. She had the same right to marry a person of her own race whenever she wanted. But she wanted to marry a person of a different race. Hence Loving v. Virginia.

*Mildred Loving issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision. Her statement concluded:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.*

Excerpt in italics (source): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Loving

 

[michael_quinlan]

Hate the sin, love the sinner is what I was always taught. But then again, shortly after homosexuality was declared intrinsically evil by Pope John Paul II, a young man was shot, wrapped in barbed wire, and left to bleed to death, alone in the dark in Wyoming for having made a pass at another man. I don’t think this is in line with WWJD.

    Perhaps, we need to reverse the saying.........

    LOVE the SINNER, hate the sin.  If we put more attention on the love aspect maybe less people will end up wrapped in barbed wire.

    So in other words, let remember we are to love gays and lesbians and invite them to the banquet of the Lord.  For God does not make junk and we are all children of God to be loved and revered as such.

 

[Erik1978]

WOW, Cristininha. I find it amazing that you can post pro gay marriage on a orthodox Catholic forum. Are we not open minded and fair or what. I posted a few comments on 'join the impact" forum and was quickly shut down. So much for tolerence in the gay community. Just say what they tell you to say and you will be fine. Other than that you have no rights of free speech, religion or otherwise. That’s what I’m fighting against.

 

[Gamera]

…But then again, shortly after homosexuality was declared intrinsically evil by Pope John Paul II, a young man was shot, wrapped in barbed wire, and left to bleed to death, alone in the dark in Wyoming for having made a pass at another man. I don’t think this is in line with WWJD.

Do you think there was a cause-and-effect here? Would someone who cares what the Pope says go around shooting people and wrapping them in barb wire? There was nothing new in JP2’s statement that hadn’t been taught for 2,000 years. And there’s nothing new about psycho killers, either. If the pope condemned adultery, and a wife killed her cheating husband the next day, would we assume there was a cause-and-effect between the pope’s statement and the murder?

 

[michael_quinlan]

In fact, Pope John Paul was saddened, not only by the increase in violence toward gay people, but by the “righteous” murder of abortion doctors. I especially remember the one shot through his kitchen window with a high-powered rifle while he ate with breakfast with his family.
The Pope, in effect, had to explain that LOVE is the response, not retribution or righteous revenge. I think he was quite surprised at the backlash and necessity to explain this to the Catholic Community at large.

 

[Lee_M]

WOW, Cristininha. I find it amazing that you can post pro gay marriage on a orthodox Catholic forum. Are we not open minded and fair or what. I posted a few comments on 'join the impact" forum and was quickly shut down. So much for tolerence in the gay community. Just say what they tell you to say and you will be fine. Other than that you have no rights of free speech, religion or otherwise. That’s what I’m fighting against.

This is not about tolerence in the gay community. It is about redefining marriage. Again, your argument of rights of free speech don’t hold. This is not a government owned website. Maybe you need a refresher course in civics.

 

[truagape]

Gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do. They can marry the opposite sex whenever they want!

Maybe you haven’t talked to enough hetrosexual spouses or even the children created from such marriages to realize the pain all parties are subjected to. Who knows, maybe your husband will tell you he’s gay and tired of living a lie with you.