Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[edwest2]

Unfortunately, the State and the courts have become the instruments of “change.” Marriage licenses exist to establish a legal document and leads to property and inheritance rights, as defined by the State and tax laws. Abolishing this would result in a patchwork system. It would be good to have another system but this is what we have. If that is still frustrating to some, I ask, what would be your alternative?

Too many apologists for gay rights think that making marriage private is just the loophole they need. This would, I think, lead to 5 day marriages and a quickie divorce at the Divorce Mall. I’m not kidding.

What is occurring here is nothing less than an attempt at social engineering. It is also a marketing campaign. If you read accounts in the press, money is spent to promote gay marriage, and if there’s a setback, it’s usually blamed on a lack of money and a lack of effective campaigning on the part of supporters. This is sometimes followed by predictive statements like, in 10 or 20 years, people will wonder what the fuss was about. Or, after those religious types calm down, things will be different.

Basically, one group is willing to spend years, even decades, promoting what they want. But it goes beyond mere human wants or desires. We need a strong societal foundation for the family. Nothing less. And nothing that distorts it. The current breakdown of the family clearly started with the sexual revolution, followed by the widespread availability of pornography, followed by NOW poisoning relations between men and women, followed by No-Fault Divorce. And the media made it a point to make sure that sex was talked about 24/7.

So, Catholics, and everyone of good will, need to live out our faith in regards to human sexuality. To follow our Church’s unchanged teaching for chastity. Our children are our future. The citizens and Catholics that will follow us. Yet, a comprehensive reading of the sex related laws and discussions recently shows that it’s about pleasure. It’s about having sex with literally everyone. It’s the fruit of the sexual revolution and the things I mentioned that followed it. Frighten all women then offer them No-Fault Divorce, and abortion.

I’ve seen too many people really mess up their lives by not taking the marriage commitment seriously or by treating sex as something casual and meaningless, useful only for pleasure. When we, as a society, divorce the sex act from the unitive, procreative, family creating thing it is, then it’s just about hedonism.

I can’t help but draw the conclusion that all of the events that started with the sexual revolution in 1968 gradually broke down all of what was normative in male-female relationships and replaced a long commitment, usually a mixture of hardships and struggles along with the real joy of children and love, into a search for pleasure only – any kind of pleasure. Now, even those raised Catholic are shacking up and not marrying, and not having kids. They go to work and come home, knowing that at any time, one can simply walk out on the other.

All things in life that are worthwhile are difficult. Jesus tells us to carry our cross daily.He also tells us, My burden is light. I lived through a period of time where the adults around me followed that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sadinoel]

You guys and girls just don’t get it.

This should not be an argument over the morality of homosexual marriage. Most Christians agree that it is against the Law of God.

This should be focused on whether or not you want to live in a society where the religious majority can dictate law.

When/if the country has more Muslims than Christians you will all be sorry you have torn down the constitution which guarantees our civil liberties as they impose Sharia law on us. Could happen with any religious group.

This is a simple argument and everyone here is muddling the issue to suit their own agenda. Frankly, it sickens me.

The TRUTH is that our forefathers created the constitution to protect us from ourselves.

It’s called separation of church and state. Believe me when I say, you do not want to go down a road that brings the two together… just look at Iran.

Ideally yes, we would love to be a nation ruled by Christian principles but the reality is that we do not live in that world. We live in a secular world, though as Christians we are not “part of” that world. We still must be practical and protect ourselves from being dominated by non-Christian doctrine… and unfortunately for us, part of that means we have to allow others to live by their own religion (or no religion)… if we do not protect their rights, it may be us on the other side of the coin one day.

That is why our forefathers created the constitution. Let’s not mess with it!

 

[ladybri77]

You guys and girls just don’t get it.

This should not be an argument over the morality of homosexual marriage. Most Christians agree that it is against the Law of God.

This should be focused on whether or not you want to live in a society where the religious majority can dictate law.

When/if the country has more Muslims than Christians you will all be sorry you have torn down the constitution which guarantees our civil liberties as they impose Sharia law on us. Could happen with any religious group.

This is a simple argument and everyone here is muddling the issue to suit their own agenda. Frankly, it sickens me.

The TRUTH is that our forefathers created the constitution to protect us from ourselves.

It’s called separation of church and state. Believe me when I say, you do not want to go down a road that brings the two together… just look at Iran.

Ideally yes, we would love to be a nation ruled by Christian principles but the reality is that we do not live in that world. We live in a secular world, though as Christians we are not “part of” that world. We still must be practical and protect ourselves from being dominated by non-Christian doctrine… and unfortunately for us, part of that means we have to allow others to live by their own religion (or no religion)… if we do not protect their rights, it may be us on the other side of the coin one day.

That is why our forefathers created the constitution. Let’s not mess with it!

Okay, but hasn’t the law been the same for hundreds of thousands of years?? And you don’t expect anyone to challenge what goes against a natural moral law?! It isn’t even exclusively religious law, although God created man and nature. It’s a natural function of nature that man get together with woman and reproduce! Come on now… Not only is it in the book of Genesis, but it’s in the Muslim (I’m sure) and Jewish writings as well! Now, if that does not make up the MAJORITY of people in the U.S., I don’t know what does.

It doesn’t say anywhere in the constitution that two of the same sex can be married.

Using your words - “This should be focused on whether or not you want to live in a society…” And I will add, “…a society that has become hedonistic, where immorality runs rampant, an idolatrous, murderous generation which has forgotten the Truth that was put in their hearts from the beginning, dictating right and wrong, put there by God himself, where civility becomes obsolete, having an anything goes mentality, STD’s, AIDS and disease running rampant”. I could go on, but don’t want to over kill…

A society where immorality becomes the ruling class, destroys itself.

 

[edwest2]

You guys and girls just don’t get it.

This should not be an argument over the morality of homosexual marriage. Most Christians agree that it is against the Law of God.

This should be focused on whether or not you want to live in a society where the religious majority can dictate law.

When/if the country has more Muslims than Christians you will all be sorry you have torn down the constitution which guarantees our civil liberties as they impose Sharia law on us. Could happen with any religious group.

This is a simple argument and everyone here is muddling the issue to suit their own agenda. Frankly, it sickens me.

The TRUTH is that our forefathers created the constitution to protect us from ourselves.

It’s called separation of church and state. Believe me when I say, you do not want to go down a road that brings the two together… just look at Iran.

Ideally yes, we would love to be a nation ruled by Christian principles but the reality is that we do not live in that world. We live in a secular world, though as Christians we are not “part of” that world. We still must be practical and protect ourselves from being dominated by non-Christian doctrine… and unfortunately for us, part of that means we have to allow others to live by their own religion (or no religion)… if we do not protect their rights, it may be us on the other side of the coin one day.

That is why our forefathers created the constitution. Let’s not mess with it!

Why are you playing the Muslim fear card? Do you want to live in a society where the minority dictate the law?

If you’re on an island with a population of 100 people and something comes up for a vote and 2 people disagree, what are you going to do?

Marriage has certain “inalienable characteristics” as this Church document makes clear:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

And what about the ACLU? Do you want a list of public buildings and places where they’ve removed religious monuments recently in order to protect the rights of religious people? Give me a break.

We The People decide how the society we live in should be ordered.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tm30]

First of all:

I am a Catholic (but not Roman) straight male who is married with kids and I abhor homosexuality, along with all other sins. I am also a sinner like everyone else here and in the entire world. I’ve been saved by the blood of my Lord Jesus Christ and I do my best to be faithful every day, although I am not perfect.

That being said…

Let me ask all of you who are so against allowing homos to have a civil union this simple question:

Why should your view on homo civil unions carry more weight than (for example) a Muslim’s view, or a Wiccan’s view, or a Hindu’s view, or an Atheist’s view, or an Agnostic’s view, or a Buddhist’s view, or anyone else’s freakin view?

The reason we live in a stinking democracy is to prevent the Muslims, Hindu’s, Atheists, and yes Christians from imposing their belief system on us without representation. How would you like it if all of a sudden our children were required to learn Zen in school? This is the reason we have a democracy people, and although I disagree with homosexual marriage, I support the rights of people to VOTE on issues like this and will support the decisions that allow us to live in a FREE SOCIETY.

In Iran, homos are hanged… but you would not want to be a Christian there either now would ya?

The sword cuts both ways people. Get your head’s out of the sand because if you don’t you are ignoring the truth about the world we live in (but are not part of) and thus are not only incapable of making changes for the better, but worse, you contribute to the enemy’s increasing stranglehold on the world. We can not fight Satan in this way.

Vote against homosexual marriage and speak your mind… however please recognize that we also all benefit from the same protection these laws provide to the homos… so when/if they do “win” a civil right, you have to respect it under our constitution. You do not have to agree. If you don’t respect it, you cause a loss of credibility for Christians and make us all look like hypocrites with double standards.

Oh and as to the post above this one… get over it. I agree that the state SHOULD NOT PLAY A ROLE but REALITY IS THAT IN THIS COUNTRY IT DOES so stop with the nonsense.

Peace

You’re whistling past the graveyard if you think that the re-defining of marriage is okay as long as it’s a product of a democratic process. Democracy assumes that there is a society worthy of its protections and those of our Constitution. By turning society’s foundation into a decaying freakshow, democracy can no longer reasonably function to protect anyone from anything.

Will you cheer this so-called “separation of church and state” as you’re led to the scaffold?

By the way, state votes - actual democratic votes - have gone decidedly against SSM rights. So, it seems the only people qualified to vote on this issue - according to your view - are non-Christians…

 

[tm30]

This should be focused on whether or not you want to live in a society where the religious majority can dictate law.

I don’t understand. If Christians make up the vast majority of Americans, and the vast majority of Christians oppose SSM, your position therefore nullifies the will of the people - the very heart of “democracy”. Your position seems to advocate that we should surrender to the mob instead.

It seems the only religious “majority” dictating law are the priests of the judiciary. Agree or disagree?

 

[EnchantedEve]

Unfortunately, the State and the courts have become the instruments of “change.” Marriage licenses exist to establish a legal document and leads to property and inheritance rights, as defined by the State and tax laws. Abolishing this would result in a patchwork system. It would be good to have another system but this is what we have. If that is still frustrating to some, I ask, what would be your alternative?

Too many apologists for gay rights think that making marriage private is just the loophole they need. This would, I think, lead to 5 day marriages and a quickie divorce at the Divorce Mall. I’m not kidding.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I agree with your sentiments, and I feel you have been very strong in your position.

On the other hand, I am not how my alternative is not clear. Everyone appears to assume that unless we have government constantly diminishing our liberty we will all melt into chaos. If this works so well, why not fascism? But that aside, the alternative I advocate has nothing to do with Divorce Mall or 5 day marriages. Is this what Pope Leo XIII envisioned when he advocated no state role? It does mean people defining their marital compact. Until the day comes when the Christian definition of marriage can be made the only one, we must live with the fact that some will not share our view of marriage, and that they may define it in their own way. But if they are not forcing it on us, why should we be concerned?

I have already said how the homosexual movement could not turn this into a marriage issue in my alternative. What other assurances can I make? Again, why is the marriage license the only way? Why must we have such uniformity? Even when Catholic states ackowledged the Church teaching on marriage, there was no uniform contract. Why must it be so now? Obviously, half the reason we are in this mess is because we have adopted this system. Homosexuals would have no argument if the state was not involved. Then it would just be them against Christians, and we know who would win that one.

Also, I do not see any prominant homosexual advocates calling for make marriage a private matter, at least I did not during the Prop. 8 campaign here in California. Could you give an example?

 

[StephenFrancis]

Edwest2, spoken very well. I truly appreciate your posts and insight, and for once in my poating life really cannot think of anything to add to a well thought out post. God bless.

Regarding the newest post, suggesting we all “just don’t get it,” I am wondering what laws, under the “secular” Constitution, are not actually based upon the Ten Commandments? No, we should not have a “church state.” Catholics too have tried that and failed. But nor can we have a state so hostile to religion that we cannot even mention God in public anymore.

And marriage, as I have mentioned in the last couple posts, is both secular and religious. Destroying it seriously undermines our “common good.” and that is why we do have the right, and duty, to preserve it as between one man and one woman. Even Bill Clinton, who is not exactly known for his conservatisim, signed into law the Protection of Marriage Act (not sure if that is the exact title of the bill) in the 1990s.

I think we do “get it.”

 

[EnchantedEve]

Edwest2, spoken very well. I truly appreciate your posts and insight, and for once in my poating life really cannot think of anything to add to a well thought out post. God bless.

Regarding the newest post, suggesting we all “just don’t get it,” I am wondering what laws, under the “secular” Constitution, are not actually based upon the Ten Commandments? No, we should not have a “church state.” Catholics too have tried that and failed. But nor can we have a state so hostile to religion that we cannot even mention God in public anymore.

And marriage, as I have mentioned in the last couple posts, is both secular and religious. Destroying it seriously undermines our “common good.” and that is why we do have the right, and duty, to preserve it as between one man and one woman. Even Bill Clinton, who is not exactly known for his conservatisim, signed into law the Protection of Marriage Act (not sure if that is the exact title of the bill) in the 1990s.

I think we do “get it.”

Forgive me if I came off as frustrated. The only question I am asking everyone is why the solution I offered is not a workable one. If Pope Leo XIII thought the solution was less state involvement then, why not now? I never said marriage should not be between a man and a woman, just that the should have the power to regulate it, or change the definition. When Prop. 8 came up in California, I voted for it. All it said was marriage is only recognized by the government as occuring between a man and woman. This the state can and should do. Whether or not it should license, define, and regulate is my concern here.

Ed and Stephen, both of you are right on. Homosexual marriage does harm our common good, and it should be protected. I am just not sure the State is always the best vehicle to accomplish this. I apologize if I obscured this in other posts. So, yes, I do think you “get it.”

 

[StephenFrancis]

No worries, it wasn’t you that said the “you don’t get it” statement anyway. I keep forgetting to ask you though, regarding my favorite Pope Leo XIII (outside of John Paul II of course), was his statement ex cathedra or was it in a papal document such as a Papal Bull? Keep in mind that even what is said by the best Popes is not considered infallible unless it is in an official encyclical or teaching on faith and morals, part of a council decision, an ex cathedra (“from the chair”) or otherwise offiicial capacity, including the ordinary Magesterium. All of that is for another post, but…my point is this:

If it is simply his personal opinion, no matter how good or holy that Pope is, there is indeed room for error. Only if it is a teaching on faith and morals such as listed above would it be considered binding as such, and, without researching it, I can only venture to guess that this particular statement which you quoted was actually more of an opinion. It would be like Pope John Paul II telling us that we must believe in Fatima in order to remain Catholic–which he never said, by the way. Even a Pope cannot tell the Church that they are binding as Catholics to believe in a private revelation (something which came long after Sacred Scripture, or that was not part of Sacred Tradition going back to apostolic times in some manner).

I am not saying his words are without merit, but just saying that we do have, as far as I know, room to discuss/disagree on exactly how to enforce this issue. Please don’t be frustrated, I love Pope Leo XIII–he gave the Church the wonderful Prayer of St Michael–I even have a framed papal document from him hanging in my humble apartment–long story. But I consider him a patron of sorts–God bless, and St Michael, defend us!

PS–By the way, Pope Leo very well may be right on this point, but the problem is, we cannot change the historical fact that society did not follow his advice here. And now we face the battle as a legal as well as moral one, like it or not. I think it is late to suddenly just try and make marriages no longer legally binding, and the chaos that would cause would make gay marriage pale in comparision. Just my thoughts.

 

[EnchantedEve]

No worries, it wasn’t you that said the “you don’t get it” statement anyway. I keep forgetting to ask you though, regarding my favorite Pope Leo XIII (outside of John Paul II of course), was his statement ex cathedra or was it in a papal document such as a Papal Bull? Keep in mind that even what is said by the best Popes is not considered infallible unless it is in an official encyclical or teaching on faith and morals, part of a council decision, an ex cathedra (“from the chair”) or otherwise offiicial capacity, including the ordinary Magesterium. All of that is for another post, but…my point is this:

PS–By the way, Pope Leo very well may be right on this point, but the problem is, we cannot change the historical fact that society did not follow his advice here. And now we face the battle as a legal as well as moral one, like it or not. I think it is late to suddenly just try and make marriages no longer legally binding, and the chaos that would cause would make gay marriage pale in comparision. Just my thoughts.

Glad it was not I who said that, I try to avoid being like that on these forums.

It was his encyclical Arcanum (On Christian Marriage), he also mentions it in his Encyclical Quam Religiosa (Civil Marriage in Peru), both excellent on marriage, by the way. Pope Pius IX also mentions it in Quanta Cura (Syllabus of Errors).

Of course you are right on in saying the Pope can be fallible in these matters. Sometimes I get the feeling from some on these forums that the Pope is never wrong on anything. I cite this because I feel that the Popes are right, and that their ideals, even if we never achieve them here, should still be considered the ideal that we strive for. It was actually because of the persecution of Catholics by protestants here in these United States, for refusing to take marriage licenses, that Pope Leo told the American Bishops to grant dispension to receive licenses. Same problem had also occured in France, Italy, and Mexico. My feeling is if we strive to limit the State’s role, as well as block homosexual marriage, then we are strengthening marriage on two fronts.

I would like to make one clarification, though. My argument is not to make marriage not legally binding. What I am suggesting is that, rather than the cookie cutter marriage license, which firstly defines marriage, and secondly permitts the marriage act, we have civil contracts, no different from a lease or buy/sell agreement, wherein we define the meaning and benefits of marriage ourselves and then have in notarized as legally binding, no different from any other contract. Of course in the case of homosexuals, they could not use such marriage contracts because they cannot be party to them, however they could have definition of benefits contracts like any any family or business partnership. This is not a marriage, nor would it be recorded as such by the county.

Why is this different from a marriage license? First, choice. You can go get a prefab one at the drug store or Staples, or even a local parish, or you can have your own drawn up. Second, it empowers people to be responsible for their own marriage. The government is not “permitting” you to marry, which Pope Leo pointed out the State cannot do. Instead, it is merely recognizing an existing legal conract made between two heterosexuals to be bound in marriage.

All wants are therefore met. Homosexuals have civil benefits, but not marriages. Heterosexuals may marry, and define their marriage their own way and not have to get State permission to do so. Catholic teaching is respected and observed, freedom of choice increased and personal beliefs preserved. If we can do it well with private property, why not marriage? I think society can handle that.

The only people who may not be satisfied will be hard-core civil libertarians, who will complain that state should not limit marriage to heterosexuals. Boo-hoo. Christian teaching and the common good of society trump homosexual want every time, and no government can change this.

Hope this make my idea clearer! God bless everyone!

 

[StephenFrancis]

Strangely, I wrote something quite similar to this on my own personal blog about a month ago…maybe Pope Leo IS indeed interceding for me!!! Send me a private message and I can send you a link to it if you like. It is probably too long and involved for this forum.

I tend to agree with you actually. I have a deep concern for those from my own community and former lifestyle that have very real needs, and, whether we agree with them morally or not, they do have the right to human dignity in the areas of housing, healthcare, and the like. Anyone doing historical research will find that those have been hard fought to achieve within the GLBT community, and even in this country President Thomas Jefferson thought a great solution for homosexuals was to castrate them (us). And not many years ago most of us were stuffed in the closet and left to die there–sometimes literally.

So, while the gay liberation movement has definitely gone too far in many areas, there are still some protections needed. And our CCC teaches us not to have even a HINT of unjust discrimination against those within that lifestyle yet. And yet those protections need to be done in ways that agree with Chrstian/Catholic teaching on marriage. It is a tough balancing act to say the least. Separating those rights (including tax rights) out from marriage totally would solve much of that animosity between both groups and allow us to “live and let live.”

The problem is, I see neither side, except you, EnchantedEve (wherever did you get that name, by the way!) even proposing such a solution and the reality is we need to deal with what is in front of us now first. And right now the radical gay agenda is marriage or else! But not all gays even agree with that–it is primarily the leadership within the community who are driving this forward.

That is why I think frank and loving but open dialogue is so very important on the part of both the Church and the GLBT community. Too often that does not occur because people on both sides are so busy being angry at one another that very few are listening to alternative solutions they might be workable for both.

Pope Leo and St Michael pray for us in this spiritual battle for the souls of all. Take care.

 

[mystagogia]

You guys and girls just don’t get it.

This should not be an argument over the morality of homosexual marriage. Most Christians agree that it is against the Law of God.

This should be focused on whether or not you want to live in a society where the religious majority can dictate law.

When/if the country has more Muslims than Christians you will all be sorry you have torn down the constitution which guarantees our civil liberties as they impose Sharia law on us. Could happen with any religious group.

This is a simple argument and everyone here is muddling the issue to suit their own agenda. Frankly, it sickens me.

The TRUTH is that our forefathers created the constitution to protect us from ourselves.

It’s called separation of church and state. Believe me when I say, you do not want to go down a road that brings the two together… just look at Iran.

Ideally yes, we would love to be a nation ruled by Christian principles but the reality is that we do not live in that world. We live in a secular world, though as Christians we are not “part of” that world. We still must be practical and protect ourselves from being dominated by non-Christian doctrine… and unfortunately for us, part of that means we have to allow others to live by their own religion (or no religion)… if we do not protect their rights, it may be us on the other side of the coin one day.

That is why our forefathers created the constitution. Let’s not mess with it!

I can’t tell you how much this post angers me.

First, it assumes we don’t see the deeper issues. How insulting, and a brazen attempt to move the goalpost. C’mon, sadinoel, how far do you want to move it? Catholics can hang. Bring it on. Let us know on what level of discourse you want to wage this debate, and Cathlolics will be there, ready to engage.

 

[JimG]

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about gay marriage. If anyone had suggested to its authors, or even to the authors of the 14th amendment, that the document enshrined the ‘right’ of same sex marriage, they would have been quite perplexed. They might have replied, “but there’s no such thing as same sex marriage–that would be a contradiction in terms; obviously our document is not about any such thing.”

 

[AmyBrownEyes]

New York has been the fifth state to legalize gay marriage yay. As a lesbian it makes me happy. No one wants to hear this I am sure, but one day I hope that all 50 states can legalize gay marriage. Lesbians have a lower risk of catching HIV which is something heterosexual people should think about because not all gays are disease carriers everyone is. I want to be treated as a citizen of the U.S. not as a second class citizen because of my sexual orientation. Also I think children should learn about Harvey Milk in their history classes. Kids today probably don’t know who he was but they probably know of Martin Luther King more people recognize his name. I am not trying to be cross here, but Harvey Milk and Doctor King are both similar as in trying to get equality. Homosexuals don’t have equality yet. I hope one day an openly gay man or woman becomes president one day. We have elected Obama (who I voted for) the first African Amercian president. And I say hey now that we have done that maybe one day we can elect an openly gay person as president.

Amy

 

[edwest2]

snip Anyone doing historical research will find that those have been hard fought to achieve within the GLBT community, and even in this country President Thomas Jefferson thought a great solution for homosexuals was to castrate them (us). And not many years ago most of us were stuffed in the closet and left to die there–sometimes literally.

So, while the gay liberation movement has definitely gone too far in many areas, there are still some protections needed. And our CCC teaches us not to have even a HINT of unjust discrimination against those within that lifestyle yet. And yet those protections need to be done in ways that agree with Chrstian/Catholic teaching on marriage. It is a tough balancing act to say the least. Separating those rights (including tax rights) out from marriage totally would solve much of that animosity between both groups and allow us to “live and let live.”

The problem is, I see neither side, except you, EnchantedEve (wherever did you get that name, by the way!) even proposing such a solution and the reality is we need to deal with what is in front of us now first. And right now the radical gay agenda is marriage or else! But not all gays even agree with that–it is primarily the leadership within the community who are driving this forward.

“and not many years ago most of us were stuffed in the closet and left to die there…”

When was this? And when did it stop being mostly that way?

You also mention the radical gay agenda, and the “leadership.” Take the Vietnam War, the draft cards were sent out by the leadership and we were told, there is the enemy. I got my card. It didn’t matter who disagreed with the leadership. They were in power. And the same thing is happening in the GLBT community. The leadership is rallying the troops and telling them what they have to fight for.

I hate politics. For me, politics is only about the ability to make others do what you want them to do. Power, used responsibly, can do some good.

I cannot tell by looking at a person if they are on the right, the left, the middle, conservative or liberal, can you? And let’s not forget the media. As I study their actions, there is clear linkage across all platforms that reinforces, 24/7, certain messages and ideas. They are almost unavoidable.

Here’s the list:

Nothing wrong with profanity.

News discussion programs that quickly break down into shouting or veiled insult matches.

Porn needs to be promoted, along with casual sex, constantly.

All religions, especially Christianity, need to be bad-mouthed, constantly.

The average character on a TV show is profoundly dysfunctional. One example: The lead character of the TV show Grey’s Anatomy, picks up strangers at bars and has anonymous sex with them. If a problem comes up, go to the bar and drink some tequila. Go to the web site and you are told that everything in life is just shades of grey. This character is portraying the world’s most irresponsible person, and is supposed to be a doctor!?

So, we have a media that is dysfunctional and anti-Christian. It openly praises atheism and paganism, and “just sex.”

It is against this backdrop that young people are told things. Around the year 2000, veteran news anchor, Walter Cronkite, was asked by Larry King what he thought about current TV news. He decried what he called “the tabloidization of the news.”

Current ideas being promoted:

Science which now only means evolution. You are just another animal.

Embryonic stem cell research. Even though adult stem cells account for about 70 actual treatments, it gets little news coverage. Investors’ Business Daily carried a piece where it said that it is not possible to have a rational discussion about this subject. It also reported on a boy who developed tumors after embryonic stem cell treatments.

Gay marriage. It is being presented as 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Climate change or global warming. There is no evidence that current global conditions are not just part of a regular 400 year cycle, and recent ice melts can be attributed to underground volcanic activity. But fear is used to get funding.

So, there are ways for gay people to live without being discriminated against in housing, at work, and in public. There are ways to get legal documents to visit each other in the hospital and to sign over property and possessions. But the black civil rights struggle is always brought up. The fact is – there is no comparison. Gay people were never slaves, never had to go through ‘gay only’ entrances to buildings or drink out of ‘gay only’ drinking fountains, or sit in the back of the bus.

I hope you understand that based on what I’ve read that’s been published by the Church, there is no anger. It’s not about anger. There was a recent Folsom Street Fair where people were performing sex acts in public. In the previous year, there was a poster showing a bunch of men seated behind a table in a scene reminiscent of the Last Supper and the table had sex toys on it. I am not in any way implying that individual people, Catholic and non-Catholic, have not harassed gay people, but nowhere have I seen anything from the Church promoting such a thing.

So I’m certain that a dialogue can occur, but it would appear that any retreat from the radical position would be viewed as selling out or accommodation with religious bigots or turning on your own. Right now, the rallying cry is second-class citizens, which makes it all the more clear that the only solution being fought for in the country is full, 100% equivalency with heterosexual marriage. That is the core of the issue.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StephenFrancis]

EDWEST2–

I find it odd that I have been totally supportive of your posts, as well as the Church position on this issue, and yet you at least appear to not notice that at all, but rather pick apart my words instead. If you will reread everything I have posted, you will find that I never once have said that the Church supported discrimination or that gay marriage was needing to be supported by the hierarchy.

I said we needed dialogue with those we disagree with. I don’t think that is unreasonable, nor does the Church have to pretend to agree with radical agendas in order to do so. From your description of your childhood, you and I were raised in the same era
(1960s/70s) and in those days I would not have dared to mention my SSA struggle to a single soul–not a priest or pastor,not a family member, and certainly no one in my circle of friends. That is a hard burden for an 11-12 year old to bear alone.

Technically even then the laws supposedly “protected” all, but I was personally at times mercilessly persecuted by other boys in my class for not being athletic, for not fitting in, and for being, as some called me a “fem.” I was chased home from school for 2 years by a neighbor boy who hated me and to this day I do not know what I ever did or said that caused him to bully me. I didn’t choose those things, because I didn’t even know what sex or homosexuality was at that time in my life. I simply knew I was different and was hated because of it. You absolutely have the right to disagree with the gay lifestyle–so do I. However to minimize the pain within the gay community as you at least appear to be doing is not based on the facts. The gay world is a hurting one, and we are supposed to “weep with those who weep.”

I for one am not asking for “gay marriage–” I am as I have stated several times a CELIBATE CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN who is in love with the Church just as you are. I am willing to obey to the best of my ablity what each and every official Church document teaches on homosexuality and any other topic, for that matter. But we DO need to reach out to one another, and many, not few, individuals in the Church are right now so busy being angry at the homosexual community that I do not often see love or even a listening ear offered. That is what I have said several times, and all I have said.

Please do not misquote me further.

 

[StephenFrancis]

New York has been the fifth state to legalize gay marriage yay. As a lesbian it makes me happy. No one wants to hear this I am sure, but one day I hope that all 50 states can legalize gay marriage. Lesbians have a lower risk of catching HIV which is something heterosexual people should think about because not all gays are disease carriers everyone is. I want to be treated as a citizen of the U.S. not as a second class citizen because of my sexual orientation. Also I think children should learn about Harvey Milk in their history classes. Kids today probably don’t know who he was but they probably know of Martin Luther King more people recognize his name. I am not trying to be cross here, but Harvey Milk and Doctor King are both similar as in trying to get equality. Homosexuals don’t have equality yet. I hope one day an openly gay man or woman becomes president one day. We have elected Obama (who I voted for) the first African Amercian president. And I say hey now that we have done that maybe one day we can elect an openly gay person as president.

Amy

Amy first of all let me welcome you to this rather lively posting and to Catholic Answers. I am glad you felt welcome enough to post even though not all of us will agree with some of your positions, but please know you as a person and child of God are very much part of our family here.

I agree with you that many, not so much by law but by attitude, do not welcome LGBT folks as equals, and this is wrong by both Church and secular standards. However that does not mean that those of us with an opposing view are needing to become enemies. I come from an SSA (same sex attraction) background myself, and so do a number of others who post here. But no matter what background we come from, we are all called to a life of committment to God, and our Church teaches that means chastity–or no sexual activity outside of a heterosexual marriage relationship.

From your words I am fairly sure you do not agree with that position, and I would just challenge you to go back and read a number of the earlier posts to see the “back and forth” discussion we have been having. I joined in this late, but a number of others, such as Edwest2 and a few more besides, have articulated very well the Church position on homosexuality and gay marriage.

You may find it surprising that I agree with that position, but I do. I see much damage to come from such a drastic societal shift, and believe that changing the definition of marriage only serves to create animosity and hostility, as well as undermining the values of many very decent people who choose to raise their children in a different way.

The Church position in one sentence is to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” By that, of course, I mean all of us, heterosexual or homosexually inclined, as we have all failed God on many occasions. I don’t think the issue is whether Harvey Milk, who was tragically murdered years ago, should be talked about in public schools. The issue is do we agree with what he represented? And the Church cannot pretend that She does, nor endorse his views even if he did die horribly and deplorably.

I do agree with you that we have a long ways to go in this society before we can truly say we are “loving the sinner.” The Catechism is clear that discrimination of any kind is an evil. The issue is, what is discrimination? Rights need to be both granted and enforced that protect all people from harassment, but that does not need to be done by granting marriage licenses. So I agree with you to a point, but only to a point. Does that make me a homophobe? I hope not, given my background. I still have friends within the gay activist community and we disagree on lots of things, but still love one another as brothers and sisters.

You and your thoughts are welcome here.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Strangely, I wrote something quite similar to this on my own personal blog about a month ago…maybe Pope Leo IS indeed interceding for me!!! Send me a private message and I can send you a link to it if you like. It is probably too long and involved for this forum.

I tend to agree with you actually. I have a deep concern for those from my own community and former lifestyle that have very real needs, and, whether we agree with them morally or not, they do have the right to human dignity in the areas of housing, healthcare, and the like. Anyone doing historical research will find that those have been hard fought to achieve within the GLBT community, and even in this country President Thomas Jefferson thought a great solution for homosexuals was to castrate them (us). And not many years ago most of us were stuffed in the closet and left to die there–sometimes literally.

The problem is, I see neither side, except you, EnchantedEve (wherever did you get that name, by the way!) even proposing such a solution and the reality is we need to deal with what is in front of us now first. And right now the radical gay agenda is marriage or else! But not all gays even agree with that–it is primarily the leadership within the community who are driving this forward.

Pope Leo and St Michael pray for us in this spiritual battle for the souls of all. Take care.

Stephen, I agree with what you have been saying. I have seen the last couple of posts you have put up and I agree with your approach.

As I said, what I propose is an ideal of mine. I may never achieve it, but if we only just focused on what we could “realistically” achieve, would we ever do anything? I mean, let’s consider it for a minute. When the homosexual movement started, were they in any position to think they could realistically persuade people to their current goals? I would say those chances were probably zero. But perceive, bold and audacious acts have birthed results, have they not? I know more than a handful of people, Catholics even, who are not phased by the homosexual movement. I do not think this would have been the case in 1950, not that long ago in the scheme of things. As Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, once said: “It is realistic to think fantastic.”

By the way, so everyone knows, Enchanted Eve was the name of a greeting card/stationary shop I owned. I closed it when the economic downturn occured and the landlord raised my rent. The name is derived, in part, from the song “Some Enchanted Evening.” I still like that name, it means a lot to me, and well, with all the religious connected names on here, I thought I would stand out.

 

[fix]

I am not clear where you come from with this position. The Church in fact traditionally frowned upon excessive State involvement in marriage, and in fact the increaseda activism of the State on this issue stems largely from the 1848 era in Europe- hardly an era which we as Catholics should harken back to.

I am speaking of the history in USA. When has the Church declared that civil licenses are morally wrong?

The traditional view is that the State only has the power to recognize that which is- the Catholic sacrament of marriage and its “spinoff” natural law marriage. No other may suffice. The State did not claim the power to define marriage (only acknowledging that Church teaching on the matter was true) and did not define the institution legally (the Church already did that). Contracts involving marital benefits were drawn according to circumstance, not the “one size fits all” license abberation that exists today. Somehow for thousands of years we survived without marriage licenses yet now some are claiming that a “properly defined” one is the cure all.

Pope Leo XIII Arcanum, On Christian Marriage:

1. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; 'hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
2. Nevertheless, the naturalists,(32) as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion…As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

As we see here, the Holy Father states the State plays no role in the form or regulation of marriage, nor should it now.

You need to reconcile that with the current understanding. We have a living magisterium and I would ask you where that postion is taught today?