Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[jjdrury81]

I have been pleased to see several states this past week strike down gay marriage bans.

 

[Bass]

:Just answering the original post:

I agree that their is a difference between a Sacremental Catholic marriage and a State ‘marriage’. Nothing in the Constitution would allow the United States goverment to force Catholic Churches to validate these State ‘marriages’ Sacrementally. No matter how many times it is said the government is not a Christian nation, it was one made by Deist who probably had little consideration for respect to God.

Anyways as for those who say it will degrade society to nothing I find it hard to take this overreacting seriously. For those who don’t want that influence on future generations, I say teach your children well enough so that they know that it is not natural no matter what the Liberals hero of the day says! If you learn a primary school is forcing books or assemblies on homosexuality then take it up individually but don’t just assume that in the future schools and other goverment institutions will take it on themselves to spoon feed claims on equality, again if they do deal with it when it occurs not when it is just an assumption.

The only future example of forcing minority rights I can agree could occur is Incest if somehow in the decaying future they recieve a strong support like the gay ‘marriage’ supporters do now. After all if it is two consenting adults who understand (or don’t even) the risks of having children then what is stopping them? However I am really tired of seeing Catholics use the worn out Pedophiles, and beastialists(?) arguement because a child or animal cannot consent to it.

In the end I can never be one hundred percent certain in my choice but I’d probably just let Homosexuals recieve the rights that a Heterosexual couple have in Secular marriage; just so long as I don’t begin seeing Religious rights being thrown away. (Such as being allowed not to let Homosexual couples adopt children from Catholic agencies.)

With all due respect, I think your head is in the sand. Read this,

beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

 

[Texas_Roofer]

:Just answering the original post:

I agree that their is a difference between a Sacremental Catholic marriage and a State ‘marriage’. Nothing in the Constitution would allow the United States goverment to force Catholic Churches to validate these State ‘marriages’ Sacrementally. No matter how many times it is said the government is not a Christian nation, it was one made by Deist who probably had little consideration for respect to God.

Anyways as for those who say it will degrade society to nothing I find it hard to take this overreacting seriously. For those who don’t want that influence on future generations, I say teach your children well enough so that they know that it is not natural no matter what the Liberals hero of the day says! If you learn a primary school is forcing books or assemblies on homosexuality then take it up individually but don’t just assume that in the future schools and other goverment institutions will take it on themselves to spoon feed claims on equality, again if they do deal with it when it occurs not when it is just an assumption.

The only future example of forcing minority rights I can agree could occur is Incest if somehow in the decaying future they recieve a strong support like the gay ‘marriage’ supporters do now. After all if it is two consenting adults who understand (or don’t even) the risks of having children then what is stopping them? However I am really tired of seeing Catholics use the worn out Pedophiles, and beastialists(?) arguement because a child or animal cannot consent to it.

In the end I can never be one hundred percent certain in my choice but I’d probably just let Homosexuals recieve the rights that a Heterosexual couple have in Secular marriage; just so long as I don’t begin seeing Religious rights being thrown away. (Such as being allowed not to let Homosexual couples adopt children from Catholic agencies.)

FYI
The last Civil War pensioner, Albert Woolson, who joined the Union Army as a seventeen-year-old in 1864, was collecting a monthly pension of $135.45 at the time of his death in 1956. And perhaps more remarkably, there were still nineteen dependents of Civil War veterans receiving benefits in the last years of the twentieth century. At its peak, the Civil War pension system consumed approximately 45 percent of all federal revenue and was the largest department of the federal government (other than the armed services).
answers.com/topic/civil-war-pensions

This will temporarily explode if same sex marriage is allowed THEN all benefits to wife and children will be discontinued. Let them go on welfare will be the answer. See the marriage laws were about children not about feeling good adults. So the old with money will marry the young same sex to transfer the ownership, because they will feel good about it.

 

[goofyjim]

FYI
The last Civil War pensioner, Albert Woolson, who joined the Union Army as a seventeen-year-old in 1864, was collecting a monthly pension of $135.45 at the time of his death in 1956. And perhaps more remarkably, there were still nineteen dependents of Civil War veterans receiving benefits in the last years of the twentieth century. At its peak, the Civil War pension system consumed approximately 45 percent of all federal revenue and was the largest department of the federal government (other than the armed services).
answers.com/topic/civil-war-pensions

This will temporarily explode if same sex marriage is allowed THEN all benefits to wife and children will be discontinued. Let them go on welfare will be the answer. See the marriage laws were about children not about feeling good adults. So the old with money will marry the young same sex to transfer the ownership, because they will feel good about it.

I should be able to legally transfer ownership to anyone I choose despite whether I am married or not. Why should this option be exclusive to heterosexual couples only? If you can’t apply it to all then it shouldn’t happen for anyone. Why should I have to support something passed along through heterosexual avenues when funding in a homosexual’s name would be stopped upon his death? That is inequality.

 

[bullfrog654]

my brother was visiting a neighbour (black americans) they called him honkey and he called them ******. almost a fight then they said he inslaved their ancestors but in reality we faught in the ivil war to free slavery and many escaped to canada. racism is apart of equality as well the only focus i have is the president at the moment but hoped the women beame president instead

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I should be able to legally transfer ownership to anyone I choose despite whether I am married or not. Why should this option be exclusive to heterosexual couples only? If you can’t apply it to all then it shouldn’t happen for anyone. Why should I have to support something passed along through heterosexual avenues when funding in a homosexual’s name would be stopped upon his death? That is inequality.

Jim
Hetero’s cannot “transfer ownership to anyone I choose despite whether I am married or not”. So you ask for something unique. What married couples can do is jointly own. That is to prevent at least some of the mothers who used their life to raise children from poverty induced by raising children. That is what marriage laws are about.

 

[ladybri77]

I am a Catholic. And I believe that Gay Marriage, as a civil institution, should be legal in the United States of America.

It is abundantly clear that secular society has a view of marriage that is vastly different than the Church. God is not brought into many marriages. People marry and divorce at will. People carry infidelity in their minds and bodies.

Marriage, as a civil institution, is a contract. It is no different than a contract between a labor union and employer. In other words, it often holds absolutely no spiritual value. God is rarely present. God is not required to be present.

In this context, it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to take part in this institution.

I support the Churches teaching on homosexuality. Even more so, I support the Churches teaching on marriage.

However, if same sex couples want to have a civil marriage that is their right. The Church should not concern itself.

There are civil unions, but the definition of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman was established from our forefathers on a religious basis, the way God intended it to be. Why do we feel a need to mess with what God has ordained? Is there no fear of Him? Of messing around with His Truths? Maybe there should be.

 

[ladybri77]

Supporting homosexual marriage is the moral equivalent of driving your alcoholic neighbor to the corner bar…supporting a near occasion of sin. This is not consistant with Catholic morality. I assume what you mean to say is that not allowing homosexuals to take part in marriage is unfair discrimination. Morality is all about making discriminating choices.

Look beyond your narrow view. Allowing homosexual marriage opens up a whole can of immoral worms…makes adoption by homosexual couples easier, makes “hate speech” out of of the Church’s preaching against homosexuality, etc, etc. Every baby step in furthering immorality in our country and worldwide is a baby step toward the moral destruction of our world.

Amen! :clapping:

 

[goofyjim]

Jim
Hetero’s cannot “transfer ownership to anyone I choose despite whether I am married or not”. So you ask for something unique. What married couples can do is jointly own. That is to prevent at least some of the mothers who used their life to raise children from poverty induced by raising children. That is what marriage laws are about.

There should be some accomodation for any two people to jointly own then. If that requires marriage then by all means let’s call it marriage. Hetero’s should not have exclusive means of passing along benefits while homo’s do not. We don’t have to call it marriage. Civil unions permitting the same thing would be okay. It seems the system now is set up to help heterosexual married couples to pass along benefits indefinitely while homosexuals don’t have that option and lose all benefits upon their death.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There should be some accomodation for any two people to jointly own then. If that requires marriage then by all means let’s call it marriage. Hetero’s should not have exclusive means of passing along benefits while homo’s do not. We don’t have to call it marriage. Civil unions permitting the same thing would be okay. It seems the system now is set up to help heterosexual married couples to pass along benefits indefinitely while homosexuals don’t have that option and lose all benefits upon their death.

Jim
It would seem the circle has gone full. Joint ownership is not unique to marriage. Why must SSA continue to over look child birth and the implications of that to mothers and fathers? It is simply a political method gays use to call children insignificant.

 

[Jermosh]

There are civil unions, but the definition of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman was established from our forefathers on a religious basis, the way God intended it to be. Why do we feel a need to mess with what God has ordained? Is there no fear of Him? Of messing around with His Truths? Maybe there should be.

Vast majority of marriages are not as God intended them to be. So why be picky?

 

[ladybri77]

Vast majority of marriages are not as God intended them to be. So why be picky?

Maybe not, but they got married under the auspices of the church, under God and the state which were the “right” reasons to begin with.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim
It would seem the circle has gone full. Joint ownership is not unique to marriage. Why must SSA continue to over look child birth and the implications of that to mothers and fathers? It is simply a political method gays use to call children insignificant.

This conversation started with a comment that same sex unions would mean the end of benefits to mothers and children. That need not be. You just find a way to extend the same benefits to ss couples. If a heterosexual spouse can collect on the deceased’s pension why should not a homosexual be able to do the same. That’s not special rights. It doesn’t call it a marriage but gives equal financial opportunities.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Vast majority of marriages are not as God intended them to be. So why be picky?

Man can only presume a marriage is real. Certainly you are correct, yet you yourself cannot determine which is which. Only those who grossly violate the marriage practices expose themselves as multiple partners and or same sex partners. We know same sex cannot obtain marriage we do not know whether a single man woman pair will or will not obtain marriage

hope that helps .

This conversation started with a comment that same sex unions would mean the end of benefits to mothers and children. That need not be. You just find a way to extend the same benefits to ss couples. If a heterosexual spouse can collect on the deceased’s pension why should not a homosexual be able to do the same. That’s not special rights. It doesn’t call it a marriage but gives equal financial opportunities.

Homosexual unions do not produce these children which REQUIRE parenting, parenting is a moral obligation which creates financial hardship on the parents. Men answer the call of Natural [Moral] Law to provide both as an individual father and as a society member (marriage laws). Homosexual unions do not produce children, and are not subject to the financial disadvantages of parenting and thus not subject to Natural [Moral] Law restitution. In fact studies show homosexual couples do well financially, mostly because they have considerably less children.

btw have you read the bible on marriage laws? in the OT you had to marry your widowed sister-in-law even if you did not care for her. Fun hey?

 

[goofyjim]

Man can only presume a marriage is real. Certainly you are correct, yet you yourself cannot determine which is which. Only those who grossly violate the marriage practices expose themselves as multiple partners and or same sex partners. We know same sex cannot obtain marriage we do not know whether a single man woman pair will or will not obtain marriage

hope that helps .

Homosexual unions do not produce these children which REQUIRE parenting, parenting is a moral obligation which creates financial hardship on the parents. Men answer the call of Natural [Moral] Law to provide both as an individual father and as a society member (marriage laws). Homosexual unions do not produce children, and are not subject to the financial disadvantages of parenting and thus not subject to Natural [Moral] Law restitution. In fact studies show homosexual couples do well financially, mostly because they have considerably less children.

btw have you read the bible on marriage laws? in the OT you had to marry your widowed sister-in-law even if you did not care for her. Fun hey?

Why not permit them to designate an heir apparent to get the surviving benefits. They may have nieces and nephews they can help out but are somehow unable to because their benefits stop upon death whereas a married couple’s keeps going. And what about homosexual couples who heterosexuals leave their children to upon their death. Certainly they are then raising children and should be afforded the opportunity to pass along benefits to them. Unless you want the state to interfere with private adoption arrangements.

 

[dotFaith]

A long time ago I wrote into CAF that gay marriage didn’t matter since their marriages weren’t recognized by the Catholic Church anyway. I just wanted to post that since then I have changed my stance - not that I expect anyone to remember what I wrote!

I haven’t read through this entire thread, but now fully realize as a practicing Catholic the importance of being in private and public agreement with the Church - if I am not, I am a hypocrite.

I love the Church and am extremely concerned about the way things are going in America. If the Catholic Church bends to the will of the people (ie: married priests, abortion “rights”, women priests, gay marriage, etc…) it would cease to be the Catholic Church. Practicing Catholics may be declining in numbers, but I would rather be in the minority holding on to what is true than be part of the masses who are blindly walking toward the enemy.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Why not permit them to designate an heir apparent to get the surviving benefits. They may have nieces and nephews they can help out but are somehow unable to because their benefits stop upon death whereas a married couple’s keeps going. And what about homosexual couples who heterosexuals leave their children to upon their death. Certainly they are then raising children and should be afforded the opportunity to pass along benefits to them. Unless you want the state to interfere with private adoption arrangements.

Heirs they have, survivors (dependents) they do not have. Gay unions do not produce children and they do not create financially dependent mothers. It really is that simple. A “gay union” who some how get a hold of another’s baby are treated different how in regard to these children? That union does not have a mother, or are we proposing ***man ***can make mothers out of men?

 

[goofyjim]

Heirs they have, survivors (dependents) they do not have. Gay unions do not produce children and they do not create financially dependent mothers. It really is that simple. A “gay union” who some how get a hold of another’s baby are treated different how in regard to these children? That union does not have a mother, or are we proposing ***man ***can make mothers out of men?

Let’s imagine the scenario that a couple when they pass leave their child to a gay couple. Would you then let that gay couple have the financial benefits of passing along to their survivors because that is what they become. Or would you have the state step in and take the child away from the gay couple which would be going against the original parents wishes?

 

[Benadam]

A valid human pairbond flows from the bond that creates a safe environment for reproduction in all life that pairbonds. The human pairbond is called marriage. Since the beginning of civil society the secular laws surrounding marriage has been properly ordered in respect of the universal pairbond that rises up through all flesh that produces heterosexually. Untill now. There enters a union that is not open to the possibility of realizing the matrimonial state. It is visibly not open to possibility of participating in the universal pairbond. This visible distinction forces a redefining of the word because it has become a visible sign attached to the term. As it is realized in secualr society, the collective cognition of marriage evaporates once a union that is not open to the possibility of participating in the pairbond it signifies is included under the term.

My fear is that once the word marriage includes same sex unions the concepts that originate the term will become lost. If the idea of a valid marital bond becomes lost so does the effort to order society around the foundational structures of the nuclear family.

 

[Jermosh]

Maybe not, but they got married under the auspices of the church, under God and the state which were the “right” reasons to begin with.

Not really, a lot of people get married already knowing they will commit adultery, or are adulterer themselves by no annulment of a divorce. The list can go on and on about what is allowed by the Govt for marriage that is completely against everything the Bible and Church speaks of marriage. So again, why only pick on one?