Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Texas_Roofer]

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?

And what benefit would that be - allowing the mother on family insurance?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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?

If one commits adultry is the mother no longer the mother, or the children no longer children?

 

[AndyF]

jjdrury81:

1/ You claim to be Catholic, hence you are mandated to represent the Church in all it’s teachings.
2/ Any view that is not in accordance with the Church is considered a deficiency.
3/ The Church is the Authority over every authority on this planet. In fact you are
describing and witnessing a deficiency of civil entities who are to obey the Church.
This isn’t uncommon. There must have been many in Sodom and Gemorah who
wished to side with civil authorities also.
4/God’s spirit is present in everything we do, and we are always to conform to his will.
5/ You do not support the Church’s teaching on marriage.
6/ If you wish to have free choice on what to believe then there are other churches
willing to fill the gap.

AndyF

 

[ladybri77]

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?

Well, no one would know they are an adulterer. But the key here is that they are male and female, so that’s already established, and that is the crux of the issue, male and female.

 

[hopeandjoy]

Going back to the previous idea of gay ‘marriage’ being a civil contract…

I do think that is is right that gay people should have the option of entering a contract (civil partnership) in order to gain the purely legal rights which come with marriage.

However, the problem as I see it (in the UK) is that the Civil Partnership Act only provides for members of the same sex. To me this is an attempt to put a civil partnership on an equal par to marriage- simply as the alternative for homosexuals. In order to solve this, I would argue that a Civil partnership should be available to heterosexual AND homosexual couples. Perhaps this would emphasise more clearly that this is NOT marriage- it is simply the contracting between two parties for legal rights. (of course a civil marriage-non religious- would have the same effect on the legal rights of a heterosexuals couple; this idea is solely based on principle, not on legal necessity).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Going back to the previous idea of gay ‘marriage’ being a civil contract…

I do think that is is right that gay people should have the option of entering a contract (civil partnership) in order to gain the purely legal rights which come with marriage.

However, the problem as I see it (in the UK) is that the Civil Partnership Act only provides for members of the same sex. To me this is an attempt to put a civil partnership on an equal par to marriage- simply as the alternative for homosexuals. In order to solve this, I would argue that a Civil partnership should be available to heterosexual AND homosexual couples. Perhaps this would emphasise more clearly that this is NOT marriage- it is simply the contracting between two parties for legal rights. (of course a civil marriage-non religious- would have the same effect on the legal rights of a heterosexuals couple; this idea is solely based on principle, not on legal necessity).

You said it well the objective is to give marriage restitution to those not married, you are exactly correct reward those who do not deserve it. That is exactly the request.

 

[ladybri77]

You said it well the objective is to give marriage restitution to those not married, you are exactly correct reward those who do not deserve it. That is exactly the request.

Ya, but they want the real thing, don’t they? I mean they not only want the rights involved with marriage but want to be “married” in the eyes of the state and change the definition of marriage.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Ya, but they want the real thing, don’t they? I mean they not only want the rights involved with marriage but want to be “married” in the eyes of the state and change the definition of marriage.

Same sex couples cannot be “married” in the true meaning. They want recognition. I have no issue with them. I wish them well. I truly believe if they were educated on their request they would actually withdraw their request.

 

[ladybri77]

Same sex couples cannot be “married” in the true meaning. They want recognition. I have no issue with them. I wish them well. I truly believe if they were educated on their request they would actually withdraw their request.

Yes, but it would change the definition of marriage and promote immorality. And like someone above stated, it would be against the law if a priest didn’t want to “marry” them.

 

[Jermosh]

Well, no one would know they are an adulterer.

That’s not true, if they were previously married and no annulment then its adultery.

But the key here is that they are male and female, so that’s already established, and that is the crux of the issue, male and female.

Does not matter, Adultery is a grave sin, if not the worst of all sins. Our Civil Laws allow for the Legal marriage of Adulators plan and simple. The Bible defines any sexual act outside of Marriage to be a grave sin, why only give certain people legal recognition and not others? So again why be picky

 

[Seatuck]

That’s not true, if they were previously married and no annulment then its adultery.
Does not matter, Adultery is a grave sin, if not the worst of all sins. Our Civil Laws allow for the Legal marriage of Adulators plan and simple. The Bible defines any sexual act outside of Marriage to be a grave sin, why only give certain people legal recognition and not others? So again why be picky

Because sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven. It has been set apart from other sins such as adultery even though they are serious and grave sins also.
**1867 **The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

 

[goofyjim]

Because sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven. It has been set apart from other sins such as adultery even though they are serious and grave sins also.
**1867 **The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

That’s where I hold my disagreement with the whole thing. Why is sodomy worse than adultery? Adultery should cry otu to heaven as well. The two should be equal sins.

 

[goofyjim]

Well, no one would know they are an adulterer. But the key here is that they are male and female, so that’s already established, and that is the crux of the issue, male and female.

And unless one declares that they are actually having sexual relations noone would know wheter one is committing sodomy. Adultery should carry the same weight as sodomy. No excuse for the fact that is male and female. It is still a matter of unfaithfulness and should cry out to heaven all the same.

 

[Jermosh]

Because sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven. It has been set apart from other sins such as adultery even though they are serious and grave sins also.
**1867 **The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

Sins of the Sodomites has nothing to do with homosexual sex other then useing it as a tool for violence and evil.
The Bible is perfectly clear that Adultry is a grave act, just as much as homosexuality is. Actually both Christ and Paul spoke to vast amounts on how sinful Adultry really is.

 

[goofyjim]

Sins of the Sodomites has nothing to do with homosexual sex other then useing it as a tool for violence and evil.
The Bible is perfectly clear that Adultry is a grave act, just as much as homosexuality is. Actually both Christ and Paul spoke to vast amounts on how sinful Adultry really is.

Yes, I do believe Paul makes no distinction between adulterers and sodomites in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Says none of them will inherit the kingdom. So why do so many today write off adultery and not homosexuality? Seems to me that where the homosexuals go so go the adulterers.

 

[ladybri77]

Sins of the Sodomites has nothing to do with homosexual sex other then useing it as a tool for violence and evil.
The Bible is perfectly clear that Adultry is a grave act, just as much as homosexuality is. Actually both Christ and Paul spoke to vast amounts on how sinful Adultry really is.

If someone does not have an annulment from their marriage, they cannot remarry in the Catholic church, the church will not marry adulterers. I believe this is to be true, correct me if wrong.

As far as Protestants remarrying, it does say in Matthew that one can get a divorce if there is fornication between one of the two parties. Many people who love the Lord feel this means it’s okay to remarry since Matthew is the only place where Jesus says divorce and remarriage are okay under those circumstances. My only qualm is that there are two other places in the New Testament where Jesus says anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery, so that is why I would rather not date a divorced man because I’m truly not sure if I would be committing adultery or not, and I certainly do not want to.

I guess my biggest problem with the whole thing is that they want to change the definition of marriage, and it would be obvious that they would be committing a sin if they did marry, since within marriage, there is a sexual or emotional union, most often sexual, and it would be wrong, not to mention, a perversion. Most people consummate their marriages. Also, if there is an emotional attachment and no sex, this is still a sin. I’ve learned through my own experience in the gay lifestyle that if one lusts after the same sex, whether physical OR emotional, it is sin, idolatry. This is the Truth as the Lord has revealed it to me.

 

[goofyjim]

If someone does not have an annulment from their marriage, they cannot remarry in the Catholic church, the church will not marry adulterers. I believe this is to be true, correct me if wrong.

As far as Protestants remarrying, it does say in Matthew that one can get a divorce if there is fornication between one of the two parties. Many people who love the Lord feel this means it’s okay to remarry since Matthew is the only place where Jesus says divorce and remarriage are okay under those circumstances. My only qualm is that there are two other places in the New Testament where Jesus says anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery, so that is why I would rather not date a divorced man because I’m truly not sure if I would be committing adultery or not, and I certainly do not want to.

I guess my biggest problem with the whole thing is that they want to change the definition of marriage, and it would be obvious that they would be committing a sin if they did marry, since within marriage, there is a sexual or emotional union, most often sexual, and it would be wrong, not to mention, a perversion. Most people consummate their marriages. Also, if there is an emotional attachment and no sex, this is still a sin. I’ve learned through my own experience in the gay lifestyle that if one lusts after the same sex, whether physical OR emotional, it is sin, idolatry. This is the Truth as the Lord has revealed it to me.

So even an emotional attachment to someone of the same gender is idolatry? It’s not. While I may have a desire fo that person I don’t worship him. I worship God alone. No idolatry involved. If there were what would keep the heterosexual relationship from being the same thing? Does a heterosexually married perosn have to experience a little lust for their partner? Of course. Does that become worship or idolatry? No. Why make it out to be for the homosexually attracted individual. Lust is not the same as worshipping someone.

 

[ladybri77]

So even an emotional attachment to someone of the same gender is idolatry? It’s not. While I may have a desire fo that person I don’t worship him. I worship God alone. No idolatry involved. If there were what would keep the heterosexual relationship from being the same thing? Does a heterosexually married perosn have to experience a little lust for their partner? Of course. Does that become worship or idolatry? No. Why make it out to be for the homosexually attracted individual. Lust is not the same as worshipping someone.

Okay, let me explain. There is nothing wrong with healthy emotional feelings (friendship) for the same sex. When it becomes an unhealthy emotional attachment or dependency, of course that is wrong and it is idolatry. This can happen in heterosexual relationships as well where one party is too dependent on the spouse. This is also idolatry. So, either heterosexual or homosexual overattachments are unhealthy and are sin. Hopefully the heterosexual couple can work it out if they are married or split if they are in a dating relationship in order to get over the unhealthy attachment.

Why in a normal healthy friendship between two males or two females would they want to “marry”? Marriage here implying consummation of sorts (most likely sexual). That’s right, they would not want to marry each other, just be good friends.

The act of homosexual unions is such an obvious perversion, so why would I want to promote that immorality by being in favor of homosexual marriage and change the definition as well?

 

[goofyjim]

Okay, let me explain. There is nothing wrong with healthy emotional feelings (friendship) for the same sex. When it becomes an unhealthy emotional attachment or dependency, of course that is wrong and it is idolatry. This can happen in heterosexual relationships as well where one party is too dependent on the spouse. This is also idolatry. So, either heterosexual or homosexual overattachments are unhealthy and are sin. Hopefully the heterosexual couple can work it out if they are married or split if they are in a dating relationship in order to get over the unhealthy attachment.

Why in a normal healthy friendship between two males or two females would they want to “marry”? Marriage here implying consummation of sorts (most likely sexual). That’s right, they would not want to marry each other, just be good friends.

The act of homosexual unions is such an obvious perversion, so why would I want to promote that immorality by being in favor of homosexual marriage and change the definition as well?

If you have noticed my posts I never proposed calling it marriage. But I don’t see the acceptance of a homosexual orientation as being idolatry because I am attracted to the individual not worshipping them.

 

[Jermosh]

If someone does not have an annulment from their marriage, they cannot remarry in the Catholic church, the church will not marry adulterers. I believe this is to be true, correct me if wrong.

You are absolutly correct. But we are not talking about Catholic marriage, but civil marriage. In the end, I think it is hyocritical to condemn civil SSM while allowing adulters to marry as well. They are both not valid under God and Church, and they are both grave sins, so why allow one and not the other?

Fornication and Adultry are also perversions BTW.