Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Jermosh]

There is no “covenant” language in our laws concerning marriage. (There is covenant language in other categories of law, though.) This is just another attempt to hijack the language for political purposes.

False, in the state of Arizona is exactly defined as a covenant, as it was in PA as well.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. It has been extended to homosexuals now in a few states, given that that is the privilege of a state to extend or to deny.

False, see next.

The marriage between a prisoner and a non-prisoner is a heterosexual marriage. (Just another attempt to confuse the issue.)

Which is just stating that marriage is a right.

The fact that Social Security is extended to children is neither here nor there in the marriage argument. SS also is immediately extended to the widow, alone, in the event of her husband’s death. Additionally, it is extended to her children. I don’t need a lecture on this, and it’s completely off-topic.

Just more proof that the laws against SSM are discriminatory, its their SS benifit, their money, they should have the right to give it to they want to.

 

[JimG]

Rom.1:26-28 reads 'God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way men abandoned natural relations with womwn and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind to do what not ought to be done."

Jean,

I love God. I do know that homosexuality is a sin but I do not know if I believe God will abandon me and cast me into hell when I die. That would be like saying all the victims of gay hate crimes were abandoned by God and are now in hell. Thousands and thousands of people. Larry King, 15 was kille for being gay. I don’t believe God abandoned him I believe he is in Heaven or maybe Porgatory but not hell. I just think God sends gays to Purgatory and not hell. I hope that He doesn’t abandon us gays. We’re just different from straight people. I know that my place on this earth is to marry a man and have children. However, I am not physically attracted to men and I do not like being touched by men. However, I do want children someday. I have an aunt who has never married and she has no children she thinks of her nieces and nephews as children. God bless you Jean.

Amy

Just one thing. Homesexuality in itself is no sin. One’s attractions to people of the same or oppose sex are morally neutral. A married woman might for example be attracted to someone who is not her husband. That could be an attraction that is hard to overcome. In any case, it is the action of doing something wrong that is sinfiul, not one’s feelings either way.

I do think it is a peculiarity of our modern society that we tend to identify who we are with what we feel, and that is a mistake. Even among straights, there are different levels of sexual feelings, from ‘no interest at all’ to ‘can’t stop thinking about it.’

So, feelings are no sin. No one understands our feelings better than God who created us. Surely he can help us to cope with them and show us what his plan is for us.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Repeatedly re-stating that homosexual marriage is a “constitutional right” does not make it so. Again, playing amateur constitutional lawyer is a dangerous thing. You will not find such an explicit or implicit “right” in the Constitution, for homosexuals. Contracts, and the terms of them, are assigned to the states.

There is some extremely poor understanding on this thread of the way law is formed in this country and on what it is based, not to mention the concept of “rights.” Rights are not simply an extension among categories. Because a person or group in Category A has been granted a right does not necessarily grant the same right to a person or group in Category B. It depends on how universally essential that right is considered, and such a consideration is not merely a subjective one (such as the subjective wishes of some on this thread): it is formed over time, and often by precedent. Rights are not granted rashly, or based on novelty, or based on decisions of individual states. Whereas associations among unencumbered adults (not in prison, not on parole) are universal and essential, legal agreements (such as marriage) between adults are regulated by agencies in the states.

Will precedent for homosexual “marriage” ever become habitual, common, expected enough that it will eventually be seen by federal courts (not CAF posters with no legal background and no authority) as a “basic right”? Possibly. Personally, I hope not, because I see it as a descent into moral and practical chaos. Until now I have considered the end-timers as a bit reactionary & extreme, but with the disintegration of the essential organizing principles of the leading society in the modern world, I am inching toward Fr. John Corapi’s views this evening on The Abundant Life. (He was the guest.) We are behaving very much like decadent ancient Rome. While I admire the Romans (& other ancient societies) for many, many things, and acknowledge my debt to them, their personal behavior and their pragmatically amoral, expedient, and highly exploitive worldview is not one to brag about, but certainly resembles the exploitation I see in this country in its reckless abandon of the traditional family unit. Gay marriage exploits the anticipated children of such households by the self-centered motivations of the adults.

A country not in agreement about its common values and mores (never mind religion) is a weakened country, despite whatever level of wealth & military power it has. (Just look at ancient Rome for your history lesson. It wasn’t all about the barbarians. The invasions were merely opportunistic seizures of a pathetically weakened, dissolute country with little sense of loyalty & common purpose among its citizenry.)

 

[karen284]

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.

 

[Mike_Dye]

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.

You are completely wrong. God instituted the Sacrament to be a man and a woman; nothing else.
If same sex couples decide to live in sin until their final judgment that is fine with me, however I will never call it a marriage.
And how dare you say you support the Churches teaching on Marriage, You need to educate yourself on what the Sacrament is.

 

[mystagogia]

Repeatedly re-stating that homosexual marriage is a “constitutional right” does not make it so. Again, playing amateur constitutional lawyer is a dangerous thing. You will not find such an explicit or implicit “right” in the Constitution, for homosexuals. Contracts, and the terms of them, are assigned to the states.

There is some extremely poor understanding on this thread of the way law is formed in this country and on what it is based, not to mention the concept of “rights.” Rights are not simply an extension among categories. Because a person or group in Category A has been granted a right does not necessarily grant the same right to a person or group in Category B. It depends on how universally essential that right is considered, and such a consideration is not merely a subjective one (such as the subjective wishes of some on this thread): it is formed over time, and often by precedent. Rights are not granted rashly, or based on novelty, or based on decisions of individual states. Whereas associations among unencumbered adults (not in prison, not on parole) are universal and essential, legal agreements (such as marriage) between adults are regulated by agencies in the states.

Will precedent for homosexual “marriage” ever become habitual, common, expected enough that it will eventually be seen by federal courts (not CAF posters with no legal background and no authority) as a “basic right”? Possibly. Personally, I hope not, because I see it as a descent into moral and practical chaos. Until now I have considered the end-timers as a bit reactionary & extreme, but with the disintegration of the essential organizing principles of the leading society in the modern world, I am inching toward Fr. John Corapi’s views this evening on The Abundant Life. (He was the guest.) We are behaving very much like decadent ancient Rome. While I admire the Romans (& other ancient societies) for many, many things, and acknowledge my debt to them, their personal behavior and their pragmatically amoral, expedient, and highly exploitive worldview is not one to brag about, but certainly resembles the exploitation I see in this country in its reckless abandon of the traditional family unit. Gay marriage exploits the anticipated children of such households by the self-centered motivations of the adults.

A country not in agreement about its common values and mores (never mind religion) is a weakened country, despite whatever level of wealth & military power it has. (Just look at ancient Rome for your history lesson. It wasn’t all about the barbarians. The invasions were merely opportunistic seizures of a pathetically weakened, dissolute country with little sense of loyalty & common purpose among its citizenry.)

Elizabeth you are right, and I concur that opposition to gay marriage is the correct position based not just on Catholic teaching but even, surprisingly, natural rights theories. But I’m afraid we aren’t going to win this argument. We as a society have, inch by inch, become too conditioned over time to resist the appeals of group with claims of vicitimization and equality grievances in the political milleu. Emotion defeats reason, no matter how disingenuous the claim. “I feel my rights are denied, therefore they are.” Vague notions of political correctness will in fact win the day.

It is indeed a setback. If we cannot defend marriage against redefinition by one group, what leads us to believe it can be defended at all? Let’s everyone here take a deep breath and maybe we can acknowledge one, simple thing. It is that when we redefine marriage to accommodate one group then we cannot defend it against the next. On what basis could we defend it against the polygamist, the incestuous, the polyamorous? On what basis could we insist on its seriousness, its permanence, its obligation not to deform the lives of children or spouses through experimentation or dissolution?

Gay marriage advocates argue on the basis of rights and equality, a sense of fairness and grievance that few will deny. If they keep the argument restricted to that domain they will win. What will happen over time is that traditonal marriage will have been lost as a social norm. The familial relations as we have understood them, the basic units foundational to the civilization that brought us here, will be radically changed. Marriage will not be the same as it was, because the notion will have been admitted that its defining composition is arbitrary. Civil marriage will mean loosely bound civil unions which may contain a few advantageous civil benefits. Gender relations, parent-child relations - they will exact a big social cost. And all this not speculation. All this will happen. Guaranteed.

 

[Jermosh]

Elizabeth you are right, and I concur that opposition to gay marriage is the correct position based not just on Catholic teaching but even, surprisingly, natural rights theories. But I’m afraid we aren’t going to win this argument. We as a society have, inch by inch, become too conditioned over time to resist the appeals of group with claims of vicitimization and equality grievances in the political milleu. Emotion defeats reason, no matter how disingenuous the claim. “I feel my rights are denied, therefore they are.” Vague notions of political correctness will in fact win the day.

It is indeed a setback. If we cannot defend marriage against redefinition by one group, what leads us to believe it can be defended at all? Let’s everyone here take a deep breath and maybe we can acknowledge one, simple thing. It is that when we redefine marriage to accommodate one group then we cannot defend it against the next. On what basis could we defend it against the polygamist, the incestuous, the polyamorous? On what basis could we insist on its seriousness, its permanence, its obligation not to deform the lives of children or spouses through experimentation or dissolution?

Gay marriage advocates argue on the basis of rights and equality, a sense of fairness and grievance that few will deny. If they keep the argument restricted to that domain they will win. What will happen over time is that traditonal marriage will have been lost as a social norm. The familial relations as we have understood them, the basic units foundational to the civilization that brought us here, will be radically changed. Marriage will not be the same as it was, because the notion will have been admitted that its defining composition is arbitrary. Civil marriage will mean loosely bound civil unions which may contain a few advantageous civil benefits. Gender relations, parent-child relations - they will exact a big social cost. And all this not speculation. All this will happen. Guaranteed.

But marriage has redefined over the years, at one time you could not remarry unless an annulment was put into place, you also could not marry outside of you caste, even a different race, marriage of convenience was not even heard of. Secular marriage has lost any bearing or resemblance to the Sacrament/Institution of Marriage a long time ago.

In the end I think its hypocritical to put some much angst and energy into fighting SSM and not adultery or fornication civil marriages. They are all perversions of Natural Law and against everything the Church has stood for, this is were the real realvistism is at.

Also to put the issue of Marriage being a constitutional right to bed.
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/turnervsafley.html
The Courts clearly states that Marriage is a Constitutional right since they ruled in favor of the prisoners in based on the rulings in both Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967).

 

[Nino]

Then its ok for two fellows to adopt a little boy? And what of individuals who are turned on only by individuals of the same sex and then joining the boy scouts as a scout leader…its also ok to have these men go on weekend overnite trips into the woods with young boys…no one really cares if two adults live with one another and do what ever…if this brings them a bit of happiness so be it…but there must be other things involved in this crusade…what 'benefits’are also part of the package…the new hate crimes bill will force people to …what…allow or tolerant that which they dont believe in…on maybe their own property???Your freedom extends from the tip of your fist to the tip of my cute little perky nose…no further…after that you are assaulting me…and if I am even an over done couch potato I may finally stand and fight for my…MY rights!..

 

[Maso]

The logic fails.

And… when laws are codified on the basis of a falacy… there will be bad laws, and that is detremental.

Consider… If I were to press the law makers for a definition of the term “sexual orientation”… eventually it would come down to homosexuality ( among other things ) is a “sexual orientation”.

Hummm…

But isn’t homosexuality inherantly and by definition in fact a sexual dis-orientation…???

If these lawmakers can explain to me how a sexual orientation can be a sexual dis-orientation… then I will explain to you how one ( 1 ) can equal zero ( 0 ).

                           1 = 0 ...?!
                           Go figure...  :shrug:

 

[milimac]

I think the biggest issue is children. Children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father and many studies show they do best when in a household with a mother and father. The state has an interest in promoting real marriage because it results in children that do well in society. Due to death, divorce, out of wedlock pregnancies, etc., it’s not always possible to ensure children are raised in a home with a mother and father. But gay “marriage” allows children to be put in homes without a mother and father by default.

Once the state equivocates gay “marriage” with real marriage then they must treat the adoption of children the same as well, and institutions that do adoptions will be forced to allow gay couples to adopt – such as the case in Massachusetts where Catholic Charities can no longer do adoptions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

mystagogia and milimac,

Thank you both for your insightful and penetrating contributions. Like you, I have been trying to elevate & expand the conversation away from the perceptions of religionists vs. non-religionists. I think mystagogia has accurately described the gradual tenor in the country toward self-appropriated claims of “rights.” I, also, dread what this trend indicates about the direction of our society and its priorities. If it is too late to reverse the interminable march toward the substitution of self over society, all we can do is pray that society will become aware of that destructive trend sooner rather than later. Of course this will only happen after the high-wire-act social experiment will have already been realized. Very depressing.

As long as I have breath, I will continue to speak for children nevertheless.

God bless you both,
E.

 

[TracyJ]

Homosexuality is a perversion and a great social evil. It’s not something to encourage.

I’m sorry, Captain America, talk to God, not to me!
He was the one who created the homosexuals!

 

[ladybri77]

Rom.1:26-28 reads 'God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way men abandoned natural relations with womwn and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind to do what not ought to be done."

Jean,

I love God. I do know that homosexuality is a sin but I do not know if I believe God will abandon me and cast me into hell when I die. That would be like saying all the victims of gay hate crimes were abandoned by God and are now in hell. Thousands and thousands of people. Larry King, 15 was kille for being gay. I don’t believe God abandoned him I believe he is in Heaven or maybe Porgatory but not hell. I just think God sends gays to Purgatory and not hell. I hope that He doesn’t abandon us gays. We’re just different from straight people. I know that my place on this earth is to marry a man and have children. However, I am not physically attracted to men and I do not like being touched by men. However, I do want children someday. I have an aunt who has never married and she has no children she thinks of her nieces and nephews as children. God bless you Jean.

Amy

Hi Amy, nice to meet you. There are many Catholic people, including myself, who have struggled with these feelings. Because we love the Lord, we have made a decision to remain abstinent (as all single people are called to do) before marriage, and if marriage doesn’t or hasn’t occurred as of yet as in my case, then we still make a decision to remain celibate. The Catholic church as well as God and holy scripture call for this. That’s why fornication is a sin also. There is a Catholic group for people who struggle with homosexuality called Courage that gets together for support and to give hope and encouragement to one another to stay emotionally and physically abstinent. Here is the link: couragerc.net

You know I believe from what scripture tells us, that if we don’t accept the Lord Jesus into our hearts and turn from our ways, that we will not go to heaven. But if you read on in the scriptures, it says; “Neither homosexuals, nor… will enter the kingdom of heaven, but that is what you WERE”. He was talking to the people who had the old nature before they accepted Jesus into their hearts and then after, so they will go to heaven. But you must turn from your sin and accept the Lord Jesus into your heart. Here is a prayer that you can say to accept Him into your heart:

Lord Jesus, I believe You died for me and have made me a new creation through Yourself. I am so sorry for my sins and I repent of them. Please come into my heart. In the name of Jesus.

If you said this prayer and you truly mean it and believe He died for your sins, then you will be saved.

Hope this helps. Praying for you!

 

[jazzbass981]

As the old saying goes, **“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”! **End of story. Engaging in homosexual acts are evil and disordered. Homosexuality in itself is a disorder. ACTING on the impulse is what makes it sinful.

 

[ladybri77]

I’m sorry, Captain America, talk to God, not to me!
He was the one who created the homosexuals!

God didn’t create homosexuals. He doesn’t control what happens. Things happen for a reason, but He can bring good out of everything. You can offer up anything bad that happens to you for His glory and watch His grace work through you in a powerful way!

Homosexual strugglers carry a huge cross, but it can bring the best out of them if they submit to God’s will. That’s why He doesn’t stop evil, disease, sickness from happening after sin entered the world. We all have free will, but He uses these things to bring good out of them if we just submit to His will. There are many ex-gays who can attest to this. They are now living full lives and have become whole. Some of them have even married.

In the meantime, it is our obligation if we love the Lord to remain celibate and offer up our struggle to Him to be used by Him and experience His Love which is there for the asking.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Its really simple, Adultery is a Sin, Fornication in a Sin. They are both Perversions of Natural Law, and both are allowed within a Civil Marriage. Children have nothing to do with Civil Marriage, in fact it has nothing to do with the sacrament of Marriage…

1601
"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

1603
"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes…

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.shtml

 

[ladybri77]

Incest is against the law, homosexuality is not. Its apples and oranges.

Useing the argument and the fact that the vast majority of HIV cases are heterosexual, then heterosexual sex is unhealthy. There is not a large differance between vaginal and anal sex with HIV transmission, HIV is able to pass through both walls into the blood stream.

I’m saying that’s how it spread in the U.S. which doesn’t give much light to the healthiness of homosexual sex even though heterosexuals can transmit it also, it started in this way because of the unnaturalness of its state. That is my point, it was spread because of unhealthy sex, not in spite of it.

Ah, but someday, like what’s going on in Europe where incest is on the table to be legalized, it will be the same in the U.S. also along with who knows what else.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
Also to put the issue of Marriage being a constitutional right to bed.
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/turnervsafley.html
The Courts clearly states that Marriage is a Constitutional right since they ruled in favor of the prisoners in based on the rulings in both Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Actually in their very diverse opinions they basically upheld catholic teaching. The majority found that marriage predates the Constitution and the 14 amendment prevents separating some from marriage. The primary case was a dilequant child support dad being denied a marriage license. The eariler citation was a prisoner marrying in prison.

*But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. The Court’s language on the latter point bears repeating:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”*…

…at 125 U. S. 205, and as “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,”

supreme.justia.com/us/434/374/case.html

 

[greggy53]

I’m sorry, Captain America, talk to God, not to me!
He was the one who created the homosexuals!

Are you trying to say here that because God created homosexuals he created homosexuality?

There is no such thing as evil, just a perversion of goodness. Just as in science we know that there is no such thing as darkness, just an abscence of light. Homosexuality is an example of the wonderfulI gift of sex being twisted and perverted when we remove God’s light from it. Everything God created is good. We choose as a free people to accept perversion. We do not find homosexuality in any other life form on the earth. Therefore we can assert even from a strictly secular view that homosexual behavior is un-natural, and not protected under the Constitution.

 

[ladybri77]

Are you trying to say here that because God created homosexuals he created homosexuality?

There is no such thing as evil, just a perversion of goodness. Just as in science we know that there is no such thing as darkness, just an abscence of light. Homosexuality is an example of the wonderfulI gift of sex being twisted and perverted when we remove God’s light from it. Everything God created is good. We choose as a free people to accept perversion. We do not find homosexuality in any other life form on the earth. Therefore we can assert even from a strictly secular view that homosexual behavior is un-natural, and not protected under the Constitution.

There is evidence of homosexual pairing in some animal groups, birds, etc. Obviously, this is not the norm as procreation is the primary purpose in the animal kingdom just as in humans. When God cast Satan out of heaven, He cast Him to the earth and ever since the Fall in the Garden, even the animal kingdom has been affected by disease, anomalies, everything we are affected by. It’s the nature of the beast. Satan is the prince of this world. However, God has the victory, and he will be destroyed in the end! Praise God!