Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[PrincessKatrina]

You are incorrect. This is about legalizing gay sex. You are also incorrect about what you call legal rights. Right now, it is possible to be another person’s guardian, to have power of attorney and a will can be drawn up to transfer property.

The subject is the desire for gay people to be married and recognized 100% like straight people. The biology is not there. As far as I am aware, no one who wants gay marriage will settle for a civil union. None.

And yes, this has to do with the character of the entire country. Once again, no 911 operator asks for your sexual orientation before sending police or fire personnel to you.

Peace,
Ed

I’m sorry, but I wasn’t aware that gay sex was illegal. I’m glad no cops caught me with my any of my girlfriends!!

In point of fact, gay sex has been legal in the US for a rather long while. In fact, the only state in which I know there was absolutely a law making gay sex illegal was my home state of Texas (and the law, btw, stated that anal sex between two men, anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex between two men, and oral sex between a man and a woman were illegal, but did not mention anything about sex of any sort between two women!), and that law was overturned and eliminated by the United States Supreme Court years ago.

Legalizing Gay Marriage is not about legalizing Gay Sex. It is about providing us with ALL of the rights that a heterosexual couple currently is able to obtain. Yes, there are ways to obtain a few of those rights. However, if I leave all my belongings to a woman I am romantically involved with, any family I have can easily break the will on the grounds that there is no relation whatsoever to the woman. I cannot leave any sort of pension or other such thing to help her after I die, the way a heterosexual couple can for each other. If my dad dies, my mum will continue to receive money from the government/military because my dad is a veteran, and the government/military will have no grounds whatsoever for denying her that money.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with religious doctrine.

I am, personally, not satisfied with the term Civil Union because it carries a connotation of difference, of inequality. The term “Marriage” is not an inherently religious term. The term literally means “Two becoming one” and is by no means limited to any single religious concept, nor is it bound absolutely to religion, or are you going to demand that hetero marriages performed by a JoP for an athiestic couple be made illegal as well?

The arguments going on over “marriage” vs “civil union” are purely semantic because the side the government actually has ANY control over is identical in both cases. And, just because a couple is legally married does not mean the Church is required to recognize it as a holy union between that couple.

See, my friends (straight, gay, bi, etc) and I all want this particular thing from the US Government: We want the Government to federally authorize homosexual marriage contracts with all the exact same rights as heterosexual couples, while continuing to grant every Church in the US the right to choose for itself whether or not it will permit the ceremonies to be performed by their clergy in their churches. Just as the Catholic Church is allowed to decide whether or not to allow X Heterosexual Couple to have their ceremony performed by a Catholic Priest(?) in a Catholic Church, it will be up to the Catholic Church to decide whether or not to perform a ceremony for X Homosexual Couple or allow it in their facilities.

This will accomplish both the granting of the secular rights we desire while also maintaining the freedom of religion that our nation is so proud of.

 

[San5210]

Alisa, In response to some of your latest posts. I want to say that I’m very impressed with the complexity you are conveying and I appreciate your willingness to share (in this forum) how this topic has affected your family. Your points are very thought provoking. I am especially struck by the stance that you’ve taken regarding your niece and her family. It saddens me to think that so many others (some on this forum) would have used that situation to judge her life and believing that God didn’t want them ‘condoning’ her lesbianism. This probably would have caused a rift in the family between who was accepted her and those who didn’t. Imagine how much you would have lost had you turned away from your family member and how much that child would have lost not having a loving relationship with you.

You are also correct that heterosexual parents raised most gay people and the studies show that the children being raised by gay parents are no more likely to be gay that children raised by straight parents.

As to the growing references to ‘CINO’s’ and references that I or others with similar views (or at least a willingness to have an open-minded discussion) don’t belong on this forum or as part of the church. I am Catholic and I have the same right to identify as such regardless of my views on this topic. I agree with others that your

SHW,
“Cherry picking? Why are stating God’s laws considered “cherry picking” by persons such as yourself? Inheriting eternal life depends on our obeying God’s laws and these laws have not changed in 2000 years (or more). And, they will not be changed in the future by the teaching magisterium of the Church either, because “truth” does not and cannot change.”

It’s cherry picking because you aren’t out protesting BBQ pits and seafood restaurants informing the diners they’re going to hell (your moral duty?). Let me guess, that passage isn’t as important?

"Sodomy used to be against the law, too, in the USA until “Lawrence vs. Texas.”

Um, yeah it was illegal, so was women voting, African Americans owning land, need I go on?

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s cherry picking because you aren’t out protesting BBQ pits and seafood restaurants informing the diners they’re going to hell (your moral duty?). Let me guess, that passage isn’t as important?

San5210, don’t forget the polyester wearers who are headed straight for eternal damnation. Oh, and everyone in the financial services industry, which charges interest on loans…

 

[EnchantedEve]

Um, yeah it was illegal, so was women voting, African Americans owning land, need I go on?

Okay, point of order on a few things here.

We are losing the distinction between federal and state law here.

Homosexual sex between consenting adults was never illegal in federal United States, it was illegal in certain states. Sodomy laws often were specific about oral or anal sex, homosexual and/or heterosexual. Congress never passed, and under the 10th amendment technically could not pass, such laws.

Women and Afircan-American voting was also never illegal in the US. Under the Constitution, the states decided who may or may not vote. Several states, notably Montana, already had women voters and even politicians before the passage of the 19th amendment, which than forced states to allow woman to vote in federal elections.To say that these were illegal is factually inaccurate.

With regard to wearing polyester, seafood resteraunts etc, with the passing away of the Old Law between God and Israel these are no longer relevant, and the New Covenent between Christ and His Church has replaced it. These points, therefore, have no place in a Catholic debate. (Although yes, technically many of the financial instruments offered now would not cut the mustard of Catholic Social teaching)

 

[EnchantedEve]

I also wanted to mention one thing more.

I am concerned about people who advocate permitting homosexuals to adopt children.
Alas, this implies societal acceptance of a way of life we should not really accept, especially since it is one of the sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.” Our society, by permitting this arrangement, sends the wrong message regarding the nature of family life and its proper role in the raising of children. As the Church tells us, the primarily role of parents is to educate children in the Faith, that they may have the means of attaining salvation. The homosexual lifestyle, even if it does not “make children gay,” does send a message that sin is relative or even irrelevant, and that our will and not God’s is of primary importance. This has broader ramifications than merely sexual orientation. Even if homosexual parents are wonderful, as I know some are, their arrangement does not convey marriage in the natural sense and it also implies they know better than God and His Church, and this therefore makes them culpable in the eyes of God for it endangers the Faith life of they whom they have been given reposnibility of giving it to.

This slippery slope began with the inversion of marital life by heterosexuals, adopting and having children out of wedlock, divorce, contraception, etc. By accepting that homosexuals may be appropriate parents for children signifys our true abandonment of God’s design for the family, and this will mark the end of the process of decline, not the beginning. Accepting homosexuality in the family arrangement is a sign of a society which is already lost, not one that is losing its way.

 

[StAnastasia]

Alas, this implies societal acceptance of a way of life we should not really accept, especially since it is one of the sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.”

LOL!

 

[AJSB1986]

“With regard to wearing polyester, seafood resteraunts etc, with the passing away of the Old Law between God and Israel these are no longer relevant, and the New Covenent between Christ and His Church has replaced it. These points, therefore, have no place in a Catholic debate. (Although yes, technically many of the financial instruments offered now would not cut the mustard of Catholic Social teaching)”

And where in the New Covenant was there mentioned homosexuality?

“Alas, this implies societal acceptance of a way of life we should not really accept, especially since it is one of the sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.””

And where are you getting that quote from? The closest thing I can find is Gen 18:20 “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;”. However to the best of my reading of Genesis 18 and 19, the crime of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but rape and lust. The angels had no gender, and so sex with them was not homosexual nor heterosexual. And Lot offered up his daughters to appease the mob. This to me says Lot believed them there for lustful and not homosexual reasons.

“As the Church tells us, the primarily role of parents is to educate children in the Faith, that they may have the means of attaining salvation. The homosexual lifestyle, even if it does not “make children gay,” does send a message that sin is relative or even irrelevant, and that our will and not God’s is of primary importance.”

Pardon? Why cannot 2 men tell a child about the Catholic faith as well as a man and a woman? If it’s the fact that they are gay that has you caught up, then should not all sinful parents be disallowed to raise children? You are in effect saying Homosexuality is a sin on a greater level than most others and is inexcusable. If you want to have a household free of sin, I’m sorry. According to Catholic definition of sin, that will -never- happen.

“Even if homosexual parents are wonderful, as I know some are, their arrangement does not convey marriage in the natural sense and it also implies they know better than God and His Church, and this therefore makes them culpable in the eyes of God for it endangers the Faith life of they whom they have been given reposnibility of giving it to.”

Why should that argument work now when it didn’t work when people of the Church argued against inter-racial marriage?

"Accepting homosexuality in the family arrangement is a sign of a society which is already lost, not one that is losing its way. "

If finding a family who loves their adopted children instead of a family that has sex a certain way is a sign of a lost society, then sign me up with the fallen.

 

[PrincessKatrina]

I also wanted to mention one thing more.

I am concerned about people who advocate permitting homosexuals to adopt children.
Alas, this implies societal acceptance of a way of life we should not really accept, especially since it is one of the sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.” Our society, by permitting this arrangement, sends the wrong message regarding the nature of family life and its proper role in the raising of children. As the Church tells us, the primarily role of parents is to educate children in the Faith, that they may have the means of attaining salvation. The homosexual lifestyle, even if it does not “make children gay,” does send a message that sin is relative or even irrelevant, and that our will and not God’s is of primary importance. This has broader ramifications than merely sexual orientation. Even if homosexual parents are wonderful, as I know some are, their arrangement does not convey marriage in the natural sense and it also implies they know better than God and His Church, and this therefore makes them culpable in the eyes of God for it endangers the Faith life of they whom they have been given reposnibility of giving it to.

This slippery slope began with the inversion of marital life by heterosexuals, adopting and having children out of wedlock, divorce, contraception, etc. By accepting that homosexuals may be appropriate parents for children signifys our true abandonment of God’s design for the family, and this will mark the end of the process of decline, not the beginning. Accepting homosexuality in the family arrangement is a sign of a society which is already lost, not one that is losing its way.

My children will be raised in church. I pray that my children will accept God’s gift of Salvation and live good, wholesome lives. I will fully support my children whether they be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, or transgendered. My future wife will feel the same way as I do about our children, and we will be loving, Christian mothers with devoted, Christian children.

 

[EnchantedEve]

"Accepting homosexuality in the family arrangement is a sign of a society which is already lost, not one that is losing its way. "
If finding a family who loves their adopted children instead of a family that has sex a certain way is a sign of a lost society, then sign me up with the fallen.

See Article 1867 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the five sins that cry out to heaven.

Regarding the New Covenent, one quote from St. Paul:
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans, 1:26-27)

St. Paul also mentions that homosexuals shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, 1 Corinthians 6:9

Homosexuals as parents is a problem, due not only to the nature of the sin (assuming they are having sex, irrelevant if they are not) but due to pertinacity in error. In the old days they used to call this the sin of scandal, whereby one’s actions may lead others to make bad actions or use poor judgement. This true no matter what the parents’ orientation. However, by living and raising children in a committed, openly homosexual relationship, especially if they are having relations, there are clear implications that the homosexual lifestyle is a proper way of life, and not sinful. This is not merely two men or women raising a child, but a situation where homosexual acts may be occuring. The proper rearing of children would involve conveying the Church teaching on all subjects, including the nature of marriage and its purpose. Since homosexual relationships would involve not only sexual acts which are a mortal sin, but also do not fulfill the primary end of marriage, which is the procreation of children, there is no way the teaching of the Church could be conveyed in a meaningful way in these relationships, especially to the young children for whom the understanding of the Faith is so crucial. It is difficult to see how young children could comprehend the authority of the Church and the gravity of sin when the parents themselves do not seem to care about what the Church teaches on matters of morality. Again, this is true no matter what the orientation. However, since the Church does not recognize homosexuality as a valid marriage arrangement, and since the very acts of this orientation are always gravely sinful, they could never be in a parental role and still legitimately excercise the authority due only to Church recognized marriage arrangements. Same would go for other types of “relationship” arrangements. Yes, homosexuality is on a greater level of sin then others, the type we call mortal.

The Church never taught against racial marriage, which I am sure you must be well aware of. Those of mulatto or mestizo blood would certainly be suprised!

Regarding the lost society, again, whenever any family places its own judgement above God and the Church’s than they are truly lost, having no Spirit to truly guide them. How can children take seriously those who teach tenants of Faith they themselves do not believe in? If they live this contradictory Faith, how can they be guided in the narrow path? This would require foresaking the ways of the parents, which is difficult for any child, but to place a rift between the Faith and the family, this is where the true scandal lies. He loves who loves Truth above all else.

 

[AJSB1986]

The sin of Sodom was lust/rape. No homosexual act was committed. And if Lot’s actions are any indication, homosexuality had little if anything to do with Sodom’s problem. Him giving up his daughters to the mob shows he believed they would accept them to rape instead of his guests.

And if Romans really does condemn homosexuality(I’ve heard that it argues against bestiality too, so I’m unsure as to the true intent of the passage) then the last part of Rom 1:27 should show you that God is punishing them. There is no reason for you to judge them. Romans 2:1. Read it.

But, if you still want to take a hard line as to Romans, then what about Rom 1:32. Shall I and everyone, and I mean -everyone- who supports Homosexuals be put to death? This is what Paul called for, is it not? Don’t do this halfway, follow the words of Paul to the letter. If you do not, you are cherry-picking passages.

About 1 Cor 6:9, I’m glad you brought that up. 1 Cor 6:9-10 says “9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inheirit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (From my room mate’s copy of the NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament)

So really, what this is saying is the sinful shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But really, is this anything new? Of course not. However, all of mankind is sinful. And through the gift of Salvation man’s sin (no matter what it is as long as the gift of salvation is accepted) shall be wiped away.

“Since homosexual relationships would involve not only sexual acts which are a mortal sin, but also do not fulfill the primary end of marriage, which is the procreation of children, there is no way the teaching of the Church could be conveyed in a meaningful way in these relationships, especially to the young children for whom the understanding of the Faith is so crucial.”

Show me where in the Catechism it says Homosexuality is a mortal sin? Because when I look, I find this.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Homosexuality is not one of the 10 commandments, so how does it qualify as being grave? Also you state the primary reason for marriage. Funny, procreation? I thought it was love…well! Let’s start divorcing all the infertile people!

“Yes, homosexuality is on a greater level of sin then others, the type we call mortal.” Once again, please state how Homosexuality falls in the Mortal sin category. Murder, yes. Theft, yes. But love between two men or two women…I don’t recall that being one of the 10 commandments.

Also, I didn’t mean to say the Roman Catholic church taught against interracial marriage. Just the same, I don’t call you the Roman Catholic church, do I? I said people of the Church. As in members of it. Not the Church itself, the organization.

 

[AJSB1986]

Also a comment on 1 Cor 6:9 if I may. The English part of my Greek English bible says “nor homosexuals nor sodomites” in part of it, with a little * too. Looking down at the bottom I see the word for homosexuals is malakos, and sodomites is actually arsenokoitēs. Malakos means, very simply, ‘soft’. To me this indicates effeminate. So apparently, be a manly man, or you shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven. No metrosexuals allowed. Also arsenokoitēs comes from the greek words for male and bed or coitus. It’s a reference to male prostitutes. Men who are sexually immoral.

Gee, I think I said earlier it’s my belief that Sodom was guilty of lust/rape, and not homosexuality. If the books translate male prostitutes to Sodomites, I’m fairly sure that just strengthens my belief in my conclusion.

 

[sedonaman]

No doubt that’s true for Catholics. But you don’t understand my point: as long as society at large excludes the LGBT community from equal legal protection and recognition, securing “marriage” will be identified by LGBTs as the goal. …

That argument has already been shot down in #514. There is no general requirement for equality. The type you are asking for is the socialist brand, which is something entirely different from the American concept, which is quite limited.

Not to get off into a discussion of socialism, but when the socialist uses the term “equality”, he means equality of everything. Equality of income, housing, jobs, food, shelter – everything. It is this kind of “equality” that you are asking for, which is impossible for the following reasons:

In truth, socialism is a sham. In actual practice, a socialist revolution is a purposeful destabilization and creation of turmoil, dissent, and animosity, for the sole purpose of giving an opportunity to someone who is not in power to get in power. The very ideas of socialism do that very thing by feeding the lowest instincts in men. These ideas are successful because they are seen not for what they are, but for what they are portrayed to be: lofty idealism regarding uplifting the lowly.

The Founding Fathers realized that equality and liberty are mutually exclusive ideas; either one may advance only at the expense of the other. The rights of all individuals increase only at the expense of authority, and authority decreases only at the expense of order. Similarly, authority and order increase only at the expense of the rights of individuals. Total equality of all people can be accomplished only at the expense of all individual rights. Similarly, total liberty of all people can be accomplished only at the expense of all authority and order. Reason leads us to the conclusion that society must settle somewhere between severe egalitarianism and barbarity.

In the Western view, and in the Western experience, liberty is given somewhat greater value than is equality. History shows that all grand social plans aimed at increasing equality fail, and most frequently they fail in such a way as to produce results opposite or nearly opposite of what was originally intended. When any group or race is chosen to be “uplifted” by state plan or edict, that group or race is always injured in some way, and in the end, rather than having lifted the target group up to nearer equality with the rest of society, ***the rest of society is lowered somewhat toward the level of the selected target group. ***

Credit:
“The Equality Liberty Question”
thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/morality.html

 

[StAnastasia]

Also you state the primary reason for marriage. Funny, procreation? I thought it was love…well! Let’s start divorcing all the infertile people!

But only people who knowingly enter into infertile marriages (like the elderly, or men who have had testicular cancer, or women who’ve had hysterectomies); I don’t think we need to require people to divorce if they discover they are infertile after they are married, providing they entered marriage innocent of this knowledge…

StAnastasia

 

[sedonaman]

“cohabitating fornicating couple” is not “plain English,” as it carries a moral judgment from a particular religious tradfion…

So?

 

[ladybri77]

No doubt that’s true for Catholics. But you don’t understand my point: as long as society at large excludes the LGBT community from equal legal protection and recognition, securing “marriage” will be identified by LGBTs as the goal. If we don’t want to perpetuate gay marriage campaigns, get the state out of the marriage business and grant civil unions across the board.

I see what you mean, but I think it’s too late for that now. They want to be “equal” with heterosexuals in every “right” which is an oxymoron - equal with heterosexuals??

 

[StAnastasia]

So?

So what?

 

[StAnastasia]

I see what you mean, but I think it’s too late for that now. They want to be “equal” with heterosexuals in every “right” which is an oxymoron - equal with heterosexuals??

Equal under the law to inherit property, to obtain a durable power of attorney for healthcare, etc. I don’t know how the laws operate in every state, but I’ve heard too many horror stories of a partner being excluded from the bedside by the biological family of the dying partner. If equal protection in this sense can be guaranteed, then securing the status of “marriage” for LGBT partners might be recognized as unnecessary.

 

[ladybri77]

“With regard to wearing polyester, seafood resteraunts etc, with the passing away of the Old Law between God and Israel these are no longer relevant, and the New Covenent between Christ and His Church has replaced it. These points, therefore, have no place in a Catholic debate. (Although yes, technically many of the financial instruments offered now would not cut the mustard of Catholic Social teaching)”

And where in the New Covenant was there mentioned homosexuality?

“Alas, this implies societal acceptance of a way of life we should not really accept, especially since it is one of the sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.””

And where are you getting that quote from? The closest thing I can find is Gen 18:20 “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;”. However to the best of my reading of Genesis 18 and 19, the crime of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but rape and lust. The angels had no gender, and so sex with them was not homosexual nor heterosexual. And Lot offered up his daughters to appease the mob. This to me says Lot believed them there for lustful and not homosexual reasons.

“As the Church tells us, the primarily role of parents is to educate children in the Faith, that they may have the means of attaining salvation. The homosexual lifestyle, even if it does not “make children gay,” does send a message that sin is relative or even irrelevant, and that our will and not God’s is of primary importance.”

Pardon? Why cannot 2 men tell a child about the Catholic faith as well as a man and a woman? If it’s the fact that they are gay that has you caught up, then should not all sinful parents be disallowed to raise children? You are in effect saying Homosexuality is a sin on a greater level than most others and is inexcusable. If you want to have a household free of sin, I’m sorry. According to Catholic definition of sin, that will -never- happen.

“Even if homosexual parents are wonderful, as I know some are, their arrangement does not convey marriage in the natural sense and it also implies they know better than God and His Church, and this therefore makes them culpable in the eyes of God for it endangers the Faith life of they whom they have been given reposnibility of giving it to.”

Why should that argument work now when it didn’t work when people of the Church argued against inter-racial marriage?

"Accepting homosexuality in the family arrangement is a sign of a society which is already lost, not one that is losing its way. "

If finding a family who loves their adopted children instead of a family that has sex a certain way is a sign of a lost society, then sign me up with the fallen.

It is mentioned in the New Testament in Romans 1 and Galations. Also, Jesus speaks against perversion in the New Testament.

 

[ladybri77]

My children will be raised in church. I pray that my children will accept God’s gift of Salvation and live good, wholesome lives. I will fully support my children whether they be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, or transgendered. My future wife will feel the same way as I do about our children, and we will be loving, Christian mothers with devoted, Christian children.

My prayer for you and your children is that you receive Jesus into your hearts and accept the Holy Spirit also as He is Truth and will give you the Truth. If you are truly Christian, you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.

Blessings

 

[StAnastasia]

It is mentioned in the New Testament in Romans 1 and Galations. Also, Jesus speaks against perversion in the New Testament.

Where does Jesus mention homosexuality?