Freedom to "marry" in CA

[urban-hermit]

(i just posted this on facebook but wanted to share it here as well)

If homosexual “marriage” affects no one but the willing participants, why is it so important that marriage be re-defined in law?

Homosexuals already have legally recognized homosexual partnerships, so it’s not about the “benefits”.

Marriage is different from homosexual partnerships because men are different from women, and in marriage there is one of each. You could say that homosexual partnerships lack diversity (among other things).

And that is one reason why the heterosexual partnership we call “marriage” deserves to have a word to describe just what it is.

There is no logical reason to re-define it.

Why don’t homosexual men think up a word that means “permanent monogamous sexual relationship between 2 male humans”?

And then lesbians could bicker endlessly until they came up with a word that means “stifling co-dependent relationship between 2 homosexual women”.

They are totally free to do this.

And of course of course of course it goes without saying that they would definitely parade right down to city hall and get all the same “benefits” that married people get!

But they don’t do that…

Although marriage has from time immemorial always had a heterosexual meaning, they want US to re-define OUR words and terminology so that the words no longer say what we mean.

Where do they get that “right” from ?

FREEDOM would be if all citizens just took a vote …

… oh that’s right. We did that. TWICE.

 

[Eucharisted]

I’ve spoken with a few gay men and women on and offline, and they gave different reasons for wanting marriage.

• Benefits
• Lifelong partnership legalized
• Adoption rights
• Equality of marriage (i.e., for everyone)

It dosen’t make sense, though. In California, gays do get benefits, they can adopt. I guess what they really want is to have their unions on the same footing as marriage, i.e., legalized unions, which of course would open the doors for marriage for everyone.

Some gays have proposed unions be legalized but marriage be only for churches. In essense, what they want is the legalization of gay partnership and for religon to stop bothering them to keep moral. I guess that’s why a lot of gay people don’t like religion: too much morals, not enough “freedom”. I guess it’s also why they hate Christianity the most, since it’s the one religion in the world that has been spreading morality the most.

 

[urban-hermit]

Well yes that’s exactly it - they want it legally established that homosexual sex acts are EQUAL (their favorite word) to heterosexual sex.

Which of course is false.

 

[Eucharisted]

Well yes that’s exactly it - they want it legally established that homosexual sex acts are EQUAL (their favorite word) to heterosexual sex.

Which of course is false.

Yep. But you gotta look at this from other people’s opinion too. I’ve spoken a bit about homosexuality with gay people, as I said, and they have their own definition of sex.

For them, sex is an intimate act. That’s all it is. It’s an erotic view of sex, not a love view. On that understanding, all sex would be equal, and hence, all marriages too, since sex is a marital action.

But here’s the funny part.

They both deny and acknowledge that sex is a marital act. They say sex is a marital act when it benefits them to defend gay marriage, and they deny sex is a marital act when it goes against the “equality” of all sexual activities. It’s double-think, pure and simple.

“Extra-martial sex,” “marital love,” “marriage” these terms have all been redefined, just as feminists have redefined terms such as “discernment” and “power”. It’s all a part of Satan’s work to attack the Church. Every evil agenda is an extension of his work against Christ’s Church. Abortion, for example, is his way of destroying saints before they are even born. But in all of this, you must remember that the Church has been dealing with the same evils for over a millenium: female priesthood, gay acts, abortions, hatred of religion, etc. have all plagued the world since the very beginning. When Jesus came, He took away the devil’s power, and the devil tried to take revenge on Mary, but he coudn’t, she was immune to sin and assumed into heaven, so now he takes his revenge on her children, the Catholic Church. What can we do to stop him and to win souls for Christ? Prayer and sacrifice for the conversion of sinners.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Although others I’ve spoken to say that my position doesn’t go far enough (that what gays really want is ultimately to remove the influence of religion on society – but particularly the Catholic Church’s influence), my own opinion is that they simply want to nullify the assumptive dominance of heterosexuality in modern culture. Period. They want their homosexuality recognized as “equal.” The term marriage is just the final means to that end. They do not want homosexuality seen as alternative, as less preferred, as “deviant,” as “perverse,” as less natural, etc. They want it to be recognized on the same normative plane as heterosexuality. And of course, once that “equal footing” is achieved, the related acts will also not be seen as immoral, since heterosexuality is not seen as immoral.

This is why they resist & come up with excuses, when anyone suggests that the laws can easily be changed to equalize the terms “civil unions” and “marriage.” (And legal experts confirm that indeed the code can be changed.) Thus, gay partners should be able to visit loved ones in hospitals, have the same inheritance rights, purchase mutual insurance, and everything else that straight couples enjoy in ways that do not affect dependent children. I do not think it is wise or effective for any religion to try to control relationships between monogamous adults, in terms of their full freedom to associate. But where I draw the line is in the language which implies a legal status of parenthood, because then other parties are affected. That is one of the reasons I oppose the State sanctioning the term “marriage” for gays. The second reason I oppose the terminology is that for many religions – certainly Catholic among them – marriage by definition has sacramental implications. It doesn’t matter that gays continually protest that they will not demand that religions bless their unions: it will come to that, and soon. That’s why anyone who ardently believes that marriage belongs to male-female couples should be vigilant at all these attempts in the several States to overturn restricting language or to introduce equalizing language. Rights should be limited to commitments between the partners, and go no further. It does not mean that private secular agencies can’t let gays adopt: many already do. But it will prevent court mandating (due to language) of all adoption agencies to evaluate gay couples equally with straight couples, in all 50 states.

(Naturally I oppose such goals. Just wanted to share what my own perspective is.)