Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[greggy53]

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!

Perhaps by “homosexual pairing” you are refering to batchelor groups that are found in many species? this is not homosexuality. Animals of the same sex cannot successfuly mate. Therefore strictly from a darwinian view point any creatures engaging in such behavior would soon find their speieces extinct.

 

[DaveScott]

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.

While I disagree with the logic here that says same sex marriage should be permitted, at the same time I agree with why should the church concern itself concept - even though I would agree with some contrary arguments. Taking that a step further, why then does the Church require a civil divorce before it will consider a petition for a decree of nullity. If the church does not value the civil uniion (states that it does not) why then does it insist on a couple completing that process first? This seems hypocritical to me. Thoughts?

 

[mystagogia]

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).

Jermosh, it’s a mistake to think that I’m not opposed to adultery, to divorce, or to the cultural trends that favor casual sex, no-fault divorce and serial marriages. In fact, you could say that being a child of post-sexual revolution I, like many of us here I’m sure, am a victim of a broken home.

Look at adultery, divorce, re-marriage, primacy of adults’ sense of fulfillment over the needs of children. Are they components of marriage? No.

Are they consistent with fostering healthy marriages? No.

Are they beneficial for a culture that strives to promote healthy marriages? No.

Now, throw the redefinitons of marriage required by gay marriage into that mix and where does that leave us with regard to the health of the marriage?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

While I disagree with the logic here that says same sex marriage should be permitted, at the same time I agree with why should the church concern itself concept - even though I would agree with some contrary arguments. Taking that a step further, why then does the Church require a civil divorce before it will consider a petition for a decree of nullity. If the church does not value the civil uniion (states that it does not) why then does it insist on a couple completing that process first? This seems hypocritical to me. Thoughts?

Your comment seems illogical at least to me, please explain. An annulment is a finding no marriage ever existed, while a civil marriage is evidence to the contrary

 

[tm30]

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.

Secular marriage is admittedly a farce. Why do you want the Church to join everyone else circling the toilet bowl?

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.

In the end, this statement itself is hypocritical, since you’re not interested in fighting all three, but simply in not fighting the one (SSM).

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).

Marriage of who and/or what?

And incest is not an apples/oranges scenario. To define what marriage is, there has to be a reasonable definition. The reasonable definition of heterosexual marriage is procreation. It’s not defined by health insurance benefits, adoption rights, or tax-filing status. What defines homosexual marriage? If you say, “sexual orientation”, then “gay marriage” is apples/oranges to heterosexual marriage. At which point, if BOTH are defined by the state as “marriage”, there is no longer an exclusive definition of marriage at ANY level.

So, by the course of logic you’ve taken, your next step is to actively fight for the repeal of anti-incest laws, anti-polygamy laws, and anti-bestiality laws. Why shouldn’t a man marry his horse? Why can’t that same horse be covered for health insurance under its husband’s employer’s health care plan? Are you saying that marriage can ONLY be defined now as two adult human beings? How intolerant! Why just two? Why adults? Why human beings?

 

[greggy53]

While I disagree with the logic here that says same sex marriage should be permitted, at the same time I agree with why should the church concern itself concept - even though I would agree with some contrary arguments. Taking that a step further, why then does the Church require a civil divorce before it will consider a petition for a decree of nullity. If the church does not value the civil uniion (states that it does not) why then does it insist on a couple completing that process first? This seems hypocritical to me. Thoughts?

Scripture requires that we are obiedient to lawfull secular authority. The Church aknowledges that authority by requiring the civil divorce.

 

[fix]

Catholics are bound by the Catholic form of marraige, but not non Catholics. There are plenty of valid natural marriages and even sacramental marriages that are not done in a Catholic Church.

The Church says marriage is a natural institution and one that is the basic unit of society, even non Catholic marriages.

Civil marriage is more than any old contract.

 

[michael_john_ch]

Mathew 19.1-19 Marriage is between a man and a woman but I finish with verse 19 because it states LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. You must love these people (I choose to not use gay because gay means HAPPY) Romans 1.18-32 about man with man and woman with woman, I cannot agree with civil unions. The Roman Catholic Church cannot accept Civil Marriage because of the scriptures. We must love the misguided fools. We must have empathy for them to remain celibate. GOD LOVES US ALL, we must help these people but will they listen.

 

[jazzbass981]

Excellent post, Michael John! AMEN!

 

[greggy53]

I think we must also use some discretion when speaking to homosexuals. In this fallen world many people just don’t have the correct balance of hormones, and or are born with both or the wrong sexual organs. We must always acknowledge Gods grace for those afflicted in these ways. But, it is a hard sin for most of us to empathize with. When some one confesses to being a thief, all of us at one time or another having committed the same sin can easily identify with the sinner. However, homosexual sins are of a different nature, so we are not inclined to be as sympathetic with them. The ones I have talked to about gay marriage get very angry when you disagree with them, and hard feelings abound. I told one friend that Marriage can only be between a man and woman because that is what it is. That IS the definition of Marriage. If you change that definition then it is no longer Marriage. The real danger as I see it is that if we allow or accept that same sex unions can be a Marriage then we are opening Pandora’s box….Somewhere down the line, and not too far someone is going to sue the courts because they want to marry their Dog, or cat. And if the courts allow gay marriage then how can they discriminate against any other kind of union? What basis do they have to deny it?

 

[ladybri77]

I told one friend that Marriage can only be between a man and woman because that is what it is. That IS the definition of Marriage. If you change that definition then it is no longer Marriage. The real danger as I see it is that if we allow or accept that same sex unions can be a Marriage then we are opening Pandora’s box….Somewhere down the line, and not too far someone is going to sue the courts because they want to marry their Dog, or cat. And if the courts allow gay marriage then how can they discriminate against any other kind of union? What basis do they have to deny it?

Good point, Greggy! Right! How will they discriminate against any other kind of union?

 

[JimG]

Jermosh, it’s a mistake to think that I’m not opposed to adultery, to divorce, or to the cultural trends that favor casual sex, no-fault divorce and serial marriages. In fact, you could say that being a child of post-sexual revolution I, like many of us here I’m sure, am a victim of a broken home.

Look at adultery, divorce, re-marriage, primacy of adults’ sense of fulfillment over the needs of children. Are they components of marriage? No.

Are they consistent with fostering healthy marriages? No.

Are they beneficial for a culture that strives to promote healthy marriages? No.

Now, throw the redefinitons of marriage required by gay marriage into that mix and where does that leave us with regard to the health of the marriage?

Many younger people think that gay marriage is no big deal. Many traditional minded and older people think that gay marriage IS a big deal.

This post touches, I think on some of the reasons why this is so. Many young people think that gay marriage won’t affect much because in their life experience they have never known or seen a good marriage, a real marriage.

That’s a rather new thing. In my own youth, I knew of no one who was divorced, had no friends whose parents were divorced, knew of no one who had committed adultery. My neighborhood was one of families with moms, dads, and kids, and no one was beating his wife.

Now, the situation is reversed. Single parents and divorced parents are the norm. Mom’s new boyfriend is the norm. Adultery and fornication are the norm. In a world like that, what difference does gay make?

Gay marriage is actually just one more nail in the coffin of marriage, which we seem determined to seal and bury. In that respect, gay marriage proponents just wish to give the institution a decent burial.

But really they don’t. They want to prop up the dead thing and pretend it’s still alive, pretend that it still means something. But it doesn’t and it won’t, because we will have sucked all the meaning out of it.

 

[michael_john_ch]

You must not have read Matthew 19.1-19 but you have read a lot Media and watch TV. The majority of young Christians believe in marrige. I do not think I am naive, the young are much more intilligent than you seem to believe. I certainly hope your statements about young people is untrue because a Nation cannot survive without strong families. We must believe in our young for they are tomorrow. GOD BLESS YOU WE WILL SURVIVE

 

[JimG]

You must not have read Matthew 19.1-19 but you have read a lot Media and watch TV. The majority of young Christians believe in marrige. I do not think I am naive, the young are much more intilligent than you seem to believe. I certainly hope your statements about young people is untrue because a Nation cannot survive without strong families. We must believe in our young for they are tomorrow. GOD BLESS YOU WE WILL SURVIVE

Thank you. I have no doubt of the intelligence of young people. My impression that more young than old are in favor of gay marriage is purely anecdotal, and I hope it is wrong. I do agree that the nation cannot survive without strong families. But surely families have been under strong attack by trends toward fornication, adultery, cohabitation, and gay marriage. All of these contribute to family disintegration.

 

[jazzbass981]

I love to listen to Fr. Corapi. He said the devil’s greatest desire is to split up and divide the family unit. I agree. And as the late great Fr. Payton said, “The family that prays together stays together…”

 

[AmyBrownEyes]

If you feel it necessary to come out to your parents write them a letter first and remember to support them as you are coming out.
Your mom probably already knows.

How would my mother already know I am a lesbian?

 

[TracyJ]

If you feel it necessary to come out to your parents write them a letter first and remember to support them as you are coming out.
Your mom probably already knows.

How would my mother already know I am a lesbian?

Often mothers seem to know more about their children than the children realize.

Your mother may not, but in many cases when my Gay friends have come out to their
parents the father resists but the mother has long been aware that their child is not like other kids.
Parents of Gay children, like Dick Cheney, who come out with love and support for their
Gay child do a service to other parents of Gays.

 

[TracyJ]

Many younger people think that gay marriage is no big deal. Many traditional minded and older people think that gay marriage IS a big deal.

This post touches, I think on some of the reasons why this is so. Many young people think that gay marriage won’t affect much because in their life experience they have never known or seen a good marriage, a real marriage.

That’s a rather new thing. In my own youth, I knew of no one who was divorced, had no friends whose parents were divorced, knew of no one who had committed adultery. My neighborhood was one of families with moms, dads, and kids, and no one was beating his wife.

Now, the situation is reversed. Single parents and divorced parents are the norm. Mom’s new boyfriend is the norm. Adultery and fornication are the norm. In a world like that, what difference does gay make?

Gay marriage is actually just one more nail in the coffin of marriage, which we seem determined to seal and bury. In that respect, gay marriage proponents just wish to give the institution a decent burial.

But really they don’t. They want to prop up the dead thing and pretend it’s still alive, pretend that it still means something. But it doesn’t and it won’t, because we will have sucked all the meaning out of it.

Okay, but can you explain to me HOW the institution of marriage is threatened by allowing a Gay couple their civil rights to legalized cohabitation?
Of all the things that threaten marriage I just don’t understand how Gay marriages threaten
one.

 

[TracyJ]

I think we must also use some discretion when speaking to homosexuals. In this fallen world many people just don’t have the correct balance of hormones, and or are born with both or the wrong sexual organs. We must always acknowledge Gods grace for those afflicted in these ways. But, it is a hard sin for most of us to empathize with. When some one confesses to being a thief, all of us at one time or another having committed the same sin can easily identify with the sinner. However, homosexual sins are of a different nature, so we are not inclined to be as sympathetic with them. The ones I have talked to about gay marriage get very angry when you disagree with them, and hard feelings abound. I told one friend that Marriage can only be between a man and woman because that is what it is. That IS the definition of Marriage. If you change that definition then it is no longer Marriage. The real danger as I see it is that if we allow or accept that same sex unions can be a Marriage then we are opening Pandora’s box….Somewhere down the line, and not too far someone is going to sue the courts because they want to marry their Dog, or cat. And if the courts allow gay marriage then how can they discriminate against any other kind of union? What basis do they have to deny it?

The Gay people that I know who want to marry their significant others want to declare a commitment to that other person and they also want all the rights that marriage confers legally. Would you be more comfortable with the term “civil union” over the term
“marriage”?
I know where you got that idea about dogs and cats, it was from that Congressman…
I hope that he was only kidding around because that’s a BROAD stretch.

 

[ladybri77]

Okay, but can you explain to me HOW the institution of marriage is threatened by allowing a Gay couple their civil rights to legalized cohabitation?
Of all the things that threaten marriage I just don’t understand how Gay marriages threaten
one.

Civil unions already give them legalized cohabitation. I know, without the other rights of marriage, but the definition of marriage is “one man, one woman”, sorry to inform you.