Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjdrury81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In this context, it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to take part in this institution.
No one is being discriminated against. All have the same access to marriage. Any “gay” man is free to marry any available woman the same as any “straight” man. Any “gay” woman is free to marry any available man she wants to.

Now, if they want to do something different, that’s fine, just don’t call it marriage and don’t scandalize my children and expect me to congratulate them on it.
I support the Churches teaching on homosexuality. Even more so, I support the Churches teaching on marriage.
Really? The Church teaches that marriage is a permanent convenant between one man and one woman that exists for the twofold purpose of the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. How exactly does two people of the same sex aping marriage agree with this?
However, if same sex couples want to have a civil marriage that is their right. The Church should not concern itself.
Unless they insist of calling it marriage in which case it blurs the distinction that the Church insists upon even more than contraception and no-fault divorce does already.

This discussion could never have taken place a generation ago. This generation has been conditioned to believe that “marriage” and “family” don’t have any objective meaning. Because they have grown accustomed to divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, and couples not welcoming children at all, these terms mean whatever we say they mean. So, with the introduction of these un-natural unions, the next generation will be conditioned to discuss the next phase of deconstuction. Perhaps multiple arrangements? Or inter-generational marriages? Or inter-species marriages? God help us.

As a good Catholic, we are strictly obliged to oppose this. It DOES matter what the state “allows” because it effects the society in which we have to raise our kids.
 
This discussion could never have taken place a generation ago. This generation has been conditioned to believe that “marriage” and “family” don’t have any objective meaning. Because they have grown accustomed to divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, and couples not welcoming children at all, these terms mean whatever we say they mean.
…and not just these terms. Recently, in a discussion on a different messageboard about the recent legal defeats for us (triumphs for them), a participant --when confronted by someone else about the subject of gender – remarked that ‘gender is whatever the person decides it should be’ for him/her, and further that gender could be used to whatever purpose the person in question chose. I do not make this up. This amazing statement is for real.
So, with the introduction of these un-natural unions, the next generation will be conditioned to discuss the next phase of deconstuction. Perhaps multiple arrangements? Or inter-generational marriages? Or inter-species marriages? God help us.

As a good Catholic, we are strictly obliged to oppose this. It DOES matter what the state “allows” because it effects the society in which we have to raise our kids.
JKing, you may want to view my recent thoughts on the “Maine” thread (I think in Politics 2009) which may mirror some of your own thinking. Citizens, including non-Catholics, should be concerned “because it (a)ffects the society in which we have to raise our kids.” This is everybody’s issue, but particularly it is the issue of the next several generations which have no voice. And unfortunately, that ship has already begun to sail.
 
This generation has been conditioned to believe that “marriage” and “family” don’t have any objective meaning. Because they have grown accustomed to divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, and couples not welcoming children at all, these terms mean whatever we say they mean.
 
… Gay Marriage, as a civil institution, should be legal in the United States of America.

… Marriage, as a civil institution, is a contract. … In this context, it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to take part in this institution. … if same sex couples want to have a civil marriage that is their right. The Church should not concern itself.
The primary concern of the Church, is the salvation of a soul: to whatever extent it is appropriate to acknowledge differences between a Catholic soul and non-Catholic soul–there remains in both cases, souls in need of salvation. What a soul will choose across its human lifespan as a matter of its own freewill, is in accord with its own conscience: knowledge or the lack of it.

There are many marriages, which are recognized only as legal contracts; however, within the Church, where at least one party is concerned–it is a sacrament.

There are sins in thoughts, words, and deeds–what you are saying, in my opinion, is analogous to those who are Pro-Choice: you may choose abortion for yourself; however, I would choose life for myself, and with whomever I am partnered. It is an allowance for anarchy–no longer is our behavior demanded to conform with a Biblical standard: the Ten Commandments were given to bring civility to people, as opposed to Jews, Gentiles, and pagans, because people are God’s creations. When Abel was slain by Cain, and God asked: where is your brother? Cain replied: Abel has commited his choice; I have committed mine–okay, it is a very loose translation; nonethless, I am trying to illustrate a point, that you are taking the road of a lesser person–who will approve both ways of what is your choice, and what is someone else’s choice. I believe that you need to search the teachings of your faith more deeply, and find, what concern is appropriate for you to have as regards other people’s lifestyles, and choices, from the viewpoint of a soul, in need of salvation.

I hope that whatever repetition there is in this post, compared with others, will have brought forth something of benefit, to you and others.
 
Again as a same sex attracted individual who truly viewed the issue very differently just a few years ago and could not see the harm attached to same sex marriages, I do have to agree that we are on a slippery slope here. In the countries (and states) where it is legal now other peripheral issues have arisen and more are on the horizon–for example what to teach children about it in school, even elementary school, how freely pastors can or cannot say “no” to performing such unions without legal repercussions, or accusations of “religious abuse,” and questions of what the future truly does hold regarding other types of unions who will also wish to be recognized next.

It is human nature to keep pushing the envelope in most areas, for example when the speed limit was 55 in Minnesota where I live, our then Governor Ventura pushed to raise it since “people were driving 70 anyway.” Now it is 60-70 in most places, however people drive 90 instead of 70, and the traffic fatalities have statistically and significantly gone up–in other words the personal rights of a few have taken away the rights of others in the process. That is never right.

There are solid ways to not discrminate against GLBT couples, and I believe they have the right to own homes, have good jobs and decent health care, visit each other in the hospital without harassment, and will property to one another. Those are basics that we all deserve in my opinion. But why not find ways to do those things that do not muddy the waters by calling it “marriage?” The real answer is that the more radical element of gay activism (of which I once was part) has chosen to keep “pushing the envelope” and trust me it won’t end with marrage.

We definitely need honest dialogue between fair minded GLBT brothers and sisters and the Church, in order to find ways to work and live together, but it does not ever have to be at the cost of an institution that God Himself established as a holy sacrament. Marriage is not a contract only, it is a covenant. It started in Genesis and continues in Revelation. It does still hold society together, and what my neighbor does (at least in this case) matters more than it may first seem on the surface. It is not just a personal issue.
 
Again as a same sex attracted individual who truly viewed the issue very differently just a few years ago and could not see the harm attached to same sex marriages, I do have to agree that we are on a slippery slope here. In the countries (and states) where it is legal now other peripheral issues have arisen and more are on the horizon–for example what to teach children about it in school, even elementary school, how freely pastors can or cannot say “no” to performing such unions without legal repercussions, or accusations of “religious abuse,” and questions of what the future truly does hold regarding other types of unions who will also wish to be recognized next.

It is human nature to keep pushing the envelope in most areas, for example when the speed limit was 55 in Minnesota where I live, our then Governor Ventura pushed to raise it since “people were driving 70 anyway.” Now it is 60-70 in most places, however people drive 90 instead of 70, and the traffic fatalities have statistically and significantly gone up–in other words the personal rights of a few have taken away the rights of others in the process. That is never right.

There are solid ways to not discrminate against GLBT couples, and I believe they have the right to own homes, have good jobs and decent health care, visit each other in the hospital without harassment, and will property to one another. Those are basics that we all deserve in my opinion. But why not find ways to do those things that do not muddy the waters by calling it “marriage?” The real answer is that the more radical element of gay activism (of which I once was part) has chosen to keep “pushing the envelope” and trust me it won’t end with marrage.

We definitely need honest dialogue between fair minded GLBT brothers and sisters and the Church, in order to find ways to work and live together, but it does not ever have to be at the cost of an institution that God Himself established as a holy sacrament. Marriage is not a contract only, it is a covenant. It started in Genesis and continues in Revelation. It does still hold society together, and what my neighbor does (at least in this case) matters more than it may first seem on the surface. It is not just a personal issue.
Richard, just read some of your letter and your testimony on The Rock. I found it very touching, it brought a few tears to my eyes at the end. By the way, that’s a great confirmation name! I also watch EWTN, and one of my favorite programs is The Journey Home. I find it very interesting. I’ve always been Catholic but experienced the Charismatic movement in college through which I could experience God in a bigger way and feel closer to Him. I have attended some evangelical churches, visiting one almost weekly as the sermon was so good and thought provoking plus I love praise and worship music as I believe the Lord loves it when we praise Him in song as it says in the Psalms. However, I would try to make sure I would attend Mass as well because I believe that consuming the Eucharist is very important. There seemed to be something missing in the services there though, and I know that it was the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I’m the godmother to both my nieces, so I started asking them to go to church (Catholic), and since then, I stopped going to the evangelical church. The pastor of that church would once in awhile say, stop sitting on the fence and make a committment to a church, like you can’t have it both ways, and I thought that to mean that I was supposed to become a member of one or the other, so I’ve been just attending the Catholic church where I’m a member, even though I never stopped going.

I also was a member of Courage for a short time. I went to two of the conferences a few years ago in Manhattan where Fr. Groeschel spoke, and Chicago more recently. Also, my friend and I started a Courage group that didn’t last too long, there were only three of us. I got a ride from Fr. O’Keefe from the Syracuse diocese to the Courage conference in Manhattan who is a psychologist, and evaluates men who want to enter the priesthood, and I think he wrote a book (not sure) about homosexuality, but he speaks at the conferences. Were you ever a member of Courage? Attend any conferences? I also attended an Exodus conference and went a few times to a group near NYC. I was big into Exodus at first because that’s when I heard about ex-gays and that one could be healed from homosexuality. Anyway, celibacy is the key as Fr. Harvey would say AND the Catholic church AND the Lord Jesus!

Thanks for sharing.
 
JKing;5182464:
This needs to be stressed more. We wouldn’t be discussing same sex marriage if cohabitation hadn’t become a required prerequisite to marriage.

The concept of two people committed to each other’s well being as man and woman and father and mother as the primary factor that defines their bond as matrimonial is lost to the concept that if one must be committed to a decision at all it isn’t true ‘love’ so it isn’t a ‘good’ marriage either.
Where is cohabitation required? Too many people accept the false idea about cohabitation promoted by the media.

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with cohabitation by heterosexuals. Somebody woke up one day and said gay sex should be legalized and called marriage.

Peace,
Ed
 
Again as a same sex attracted individual who truly viewed the issue very differently just a few years ago and could not see the harm attached to same sex marriages, I do have to agree that we are on a slippery slope here. In the countries (and states) where it is legal now other peripheral issues have arisen and more are on the horizon–for example what to teach children about it in school, even elementary school, how freely pastors can or cannot say “no” to performing such unions without legal repercussions, or accusations of “religious abuse,” and questions of what the future truly does hold regarding other types of unions who will also wish to be recognized next.

It is human nature to keep pushing the envelope in most areas, for example when the speed limit was 55 in Minnesota where I live, our then Governor Ventura pushed to raise it since “people were driving 70 anyway.” Now it is 60-70 in most places, however people drive 90 instead of 70, and the traffic fatalities have statistically and significantly gone up–in other words the personal rights of a few have taken away the rights of others in the process. That is never right.

There are solid ways to not discrminate against GLBT couples, and I believe they have the right to own homes, have good jobs and decent health care, visit each other in the hospital without harassment, and will property to one another. Those are basics that we all deserve in my opinion. But why not find ways to do those things that do not muddy the waters by calling it “marriage?” The real answer is that the more radical element of gay activism (of which I once was part) has chosen to keep “pushing the envelope” and trust me it won’t end with marrage.

We definitely need honest dialogue between fair minded GLBT brothers and sisters and the Church, in order to find ways to work and live together, but it does not ever have to be at the cost of an institution that God Himself established as a holy sacrament. Marriage is not a contract only, it is a covenant. It started in Genesis and continues in Revelation. It does still hold society together, and what my neighbor does (at least in this case) matters more than it may first seem on the surface. It is not just a personal issue.
I study the media. It has gradually, very gradually, poisoned the Body of Christ over the last 40 years. 1968, The Sexual Revolution was about sex with anybody. In the 1970s, Adult Bookstores appeared everywhere. 1973, abortion is legalized. 1978, a vile, divisive and anti-family organization called the National Organization for Women, drives a wedge between men and women by frightening women into thinking all men are the enemy. This laid the fertile ground for No-Fault Divorce in the 1980s.

The goal was always to separate sex from love and to destroy the traditional family. The sons and daughters of the Hippies and Radicals of the 1960s soon infiltrated colleges and universities and began teaching that the traditional family was dysfunctional. They taught that anybody could do anything they wanted. Today, the average character template on TV is profoundly dysfunctional. Go to the Grey’s Anatomy web site and you’ll find out that everything about life is just shades of grey.

Without firm, absolute and stable societal structures that are functional, society degrades. Sure, two gay people could enter into legal contracts, but the radical fringe is getting all of the press. The media has joined them. “Comedians,” act as members of the Ministry of Propaganda, usually taking a minute, or a lot longer, to defend gay marriage, and to vilify those who don’t.

All this is is an advertising campaign. Too much of the thinking revolves around money and power. Too often, I read on gay sites that they lost a vote in some state because not enough money had been put into advertising. They are engineering consent, look at the numbers, dump more money into advertising, and look at the numbers again.

But what is at the heart of the issue? What do they want? The Folsom Street Fair in every city? Forcing the local Fire Department to march in a gay parade? The honest conclusion is that gays want full and unqualified acceptance as just another group of people with every equivalency to heterosexual married people? Why?

Marriage = one man + one woman

Any other marriage arrangement violates biology.

Peace,
Ed
 
I I havent read all 26 pages of posts so I apologize if the 2 questions I have are redundant or have been discussed.
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. I would say this is true–but my question is this: Is this something that the governments policies should promote–or should government policies promote the ideal? Should policies promote the ideal even while we don’t descriminate i.e. discourage adultry but no longer require women to were a giant scarlet A.
Should government policy really promote–adultry, fornication, contraception, abortion, assisted suicide, no fault divorce, same-sex marriage, etc–are these really whats best for American society as a whole?

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. Perhaps it would be useful to discuss what discrimination means? I am failing to see what “rights” I have that a gay or lesbian doesn’t have. What can I do that they cannot? (And please don’t say marry the person they “love”. Many people, gay or straight cannot marry the person they “love”, for a variety reasons.)
It would seem that the case of descrimination should be made first–then remedies could be considered and discussed.

.
 
There are solid ways to not discrminate against GLBT couples, and I believe they have the right to own homes, have good jobs and decent health care, visit each other in the hospital without harassment, and will property to one another. Those are basics that we all deserve in my opinion. But why not find ways to do those things that do not muddy the waters by calling it “marriage?” The real answer is that the more radical element of gay activism (of which I once was part) has chosen to keep “pushing the envelope” and trust me it won’t end with marrage.

The “right” (I’m not sure these are rights–maybe the pursuit of them is and I think we are now starting to debate if health care will be) to own a home, have a good job and decent health care–have nothing to do with marriage. How these get lumped into the debate is beyond me.

Visiting in the hospital–can easlily be taken care of with a quick legal document.

Willing property – well again – nothing to do with marriage. You need a will. Even married couples need a will to make sure their property goes where they want. There are a lot of married couples out there–who are on their second or third marriage and dont have a will–I guarantee you–their property passing under their states default laws is not going to get dispersed as they would wish.

The “rights” you enumerated are not what marriage was designed for or to accomplish.
 
Marriage is not a contract only, it is a covenant. It started in Genesis and continues in Revelation. It does still hold society together, and what my neighbor does (at least in this case) matters more than it may first seem on the surface. It is not just a personal issue.
**Well said!!
Am I anti gay? Absolutely not. Every one has their own cross to bear. I do not envy them that cross, at all. I don’t think they should have the right to “marry”, AND they do NOT have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.
**
 
Whew I didnt expect my post to be quoted so much lol! Markinoregon, I hope you understand that, although using different words, I think we are saying the same (or nearly the same) thing. The items I mentioned such as healthcare and other benefits unfortunately have been (at times) denied to GLBT couples in the past and I was simply saying we can indeed find other ways to meet those needs without compromising marriage. And I agree the more radical activists do not wish us to realize that. Nor can we as a Church ignore the basic needs of others, even those whose lifestyles we disagree with. Dialogue is certainly in order and needed on both sides, I believe.

And for anyone who chooses to read my own journey please do feel free, (located as I mentioned under THIS ROCK in the September issue of 2008). All I can say is God is still alive and working on this very fallen vessel! I am so thankful for that.

Ladybri I was never a member of Courage, but I did belong to the online Courage forum (somewhat similar to this) for a couple years and there is much valuable information there for anyone struggling with SSA issues. My only problem with EXODUS is the emphasis they tend to have on trying to change the actual orientation, something Courage really leaves, as does the Catholc Church, more up to the individual, as there is some controversy regarding how well those therapies actually work. Sometimes when one spends too much time trying to be “straight” rather than holy, you can become so frustrated that it pushes you right back where you started. Our inclinations are not the main issue, but what we do with them. By far the biggest issue is chastity, and that is my own personal goal for the foreseeable future.

God bless all of you! It is fun (and a little scary!) to share my meager but growing knowledge and experience with others. I hope it can help.
 
Ladybri I was never a member of Courage, but I did belong to the online Courage forum (somewhat similar to this) for a couple years and there is much valuable information there for anyone struggling with SSA issues. My only problem with EXODUS is the emphasis they tend to have on trying to change the actual orientation, something Courage really leaves, as does the Catholc Church, more up to the individual, as there is some controversy regarding how well those therapies actually work. Sometimes when one spends too much time trying to be “straight” rather than holy, you can become so frustrated that it pushes you right back where you started. Our inclinations are not the main issue, but what we do with them. By far the biggest issue is chastity, and that is my own personal goal for the foreseeable future.

God bless all of you! It is fun (and a little scary!) to share my meager but growing knowledge and experience with others. I hope it can help.
The “support group” Exodus I belonged to was never focused on changing the person’s orientation, but it was certainly open to transformation by the power of Jesus if that was going to occur. They were focused on prayer and support and of course, abstinence. They also looked at hurts from the past and healing through the power of Jesus of these hurts which could bring the individual into wholeness and into the life they were created to lead. If that included developing heterosexual feelings, then great, but it wasn’t a prerequisite nor did they focus on it. I think the “reparative therapy” you were talking about is much different than the Exodus support groups that met just like Courage groups for support and prayer but also book studies, they just looked into past issues a little more through these book studies and focused on the “root” problem of their homosexual feelings.

Many people in the group testified to the big “H” turning into a small “h” the longer they submitted themselves to Christ and offered up their hurts to God for healing. He often did, but it usually takes many years for this to occur, the more the person learns to surrender to God and His healing in their lives.

I was never in a “reparative therapy” group nor was I ever exposede to it. Really the first I heard of it was I believe on this forum, and they were just talking about the therapy rather than the support group I was associated with above.
 
Actually Exodus is a coalition of a number of different evangelical "ex gay"ministries, and some of them do emphasize the “reparative therapy” aspect alot. I think it may vary from chapter to chapter. The local one I used to work on staff with (and then later on attended for counseling, ironically) was perhaps much different than the one you were associated with.

I just think Courage has a much more balanced approach for the most part. I do not consider myself an “ex gay.” I am a Catholic Christian who happens to have a struggle in the area of SSA. To me that is a far better way to identify who I am, even to myself. The other label puts an automatic pressure on me to be something I have not come to yet, and may never come to. I have had everything from the demons cast out of me by well meaning evangelicals to the opposite extreme of being told to just “accept myself” as a gay person. Neither approach helped me in the long run.

Again I am only speaking from my own experience, and I am sure that they do vary from group to group. I just think that the safest approach is to work within the Catholic Christian arena if at all possible, and Courage is one group I can recommend without reservation to others. I am glad your experience was different than mine.
 
Benadam;5182540:
Where is cohabitation required?
in the minds of most people in this culture. How many profess waiting till marriage is what they should do?
Too many people accept the false idea about cohabitation promoted by the media.
exactly who push the requirement to cohabitate as a prerequisite state to marriage
Same sex marriage has nothing to do with cohabitation by heterosexuals. Somebody woke up one day and said gay sex should be legalized and called marriage.
Ed, if heterosexual unions had not become dominated by cohabitating couples the marital bond would be too foundational a structure to be threatened by a redefinition.

Peace,
Marv
 
Actually Exodus is a coalition of a number of different evangelical "ex gay"ministries, and some of them do emphasize the “reparative therapy” aspect alot. I think it may vary from chapter to chapter. The local one I used to work on staff with (and then later on attended for counseling, ironically) was perhaps much different than the one you were associated with.

I just think Courage has a much more balanced approach for the most part. I do not consider myself an “ex gay.” I am a Catholic Christian who happens to have a struggle in the area of SSA. To me that is a far better way to identify who I am, even to myself. The other label puts an automatic pressure on me to be something I have not come to yet, and may never come to. I have had everything from the demons cast out of me by well meaning evangelicals to the opposite extreme of being told to just “accept myself” as a gay person. Neither approach helped me in the long run.

Again I am only speaking from my own experience, and I am sure that they do vary from group to group. I just think that the safest approach is to work within the Catholic Christian arena if at all possible, and Courage is one group I can recommend without reservation to others. I am glad your experience was different than mine.
Yes, they do use that word quite a bit which in a way is not good. I think that label is used mostly for the world to see who we once “were” and who we have become (through our total life change). However, the leader in my Exodus group said that she called herself a “heterosexual” woman of God when she accepted Him into her heart, and was transformed by His Blood on the cross as we all were. That is how God the Father sees us as a result of Jesus living within us, as His righteousness, nothing we did ourselves. I refer to myself as a heterosexual woman of God who sometimes struggles with those desires also.

I agree with you about Courage being very balanced and also would recommend it.
 
Your perspective is no different than the most militant gay liberation groups in the U.S. and the perspective is erroneous, defective and a danger to this and forthcoming generations. The very meaning of marriage goes back to Adam and Eve and the main purpose, in additon to sexual, comforting, support, affection, security etc., is the procreation of the species. Homosexuals can never procreate anything except disease. To give the same meaning, respect and legitimacy to a homosexual union would be the same thing as givng an undocumented illegal non tax paying alien the same status as a tax paying documented American citizen in good standing. “Marriage” has a specific meaning and that is one man and one woman. The perverted life style of the homosexual in no way fits the historical, religious and social meaning of legitimate marriage. A different name and legal arrangement can be drawn up that covers every legal aspect of the couple in question without denegrating real and legitimate “marriage”.
 
The Debate over “GAY MARRIAGE”

“Gay marriage” is in the news a lot these days. May I begin by saying, regardless of what people say, there is no such thing. Marriage is not a human invention; it was brought into being by the Creator, Who in fact performed the first marriage Himself, Genesis 2:18-25. From the beginning it has always been between a man and a woman, as affirmed throughout the Bible, by the Prophets, by Christ, and by the Apostles. It is thus not “old-fashioned”; it is in fact eternal, and not up for a vote. We are living in God’s universe: eating His food, drinking His water, breathing His air, and He gets to make the rules. He thinks He is God, you see; but many people think that they are their own gods (Gen.3:5). Only a “wicked and adulterous generation” (Matt 16:4), one which “neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (see Romans 1:18-32), could even consider the possibility of marriage between two of the same sex. And that sound of distant thunder could be the storm clouds of the judgment of God heading our way. Yes, I know, this must mean that I am “narrow-minded, judgmental, bigoted”. But it would be hard to verify such an opinion by the actual facts. I have known many homosexual persons, and none could ever claim that I did not treat them with kindness and respect, as though they were made in the “image and likeness of God”. I personally ministered to a homosexual man in every way possible, until he died of AIDS. It is because I love and care about homosexuals that I cannot pretend everything is “OK”. The easiest thing to do is to just ignore the plight of others, and look the other way as they destroy themselves. But maybe when God puts up the “no trespassing” sign, He is not just trying to ruin someone’s fun. Maybe He knows more than they do, and is trying to protect them. Look at the facts. Aside from the moral issue, homosexuality is a profoundly unhealthy behavior. Ask any doctor or nurse! HIV, full blown AIDS (85% of all cases; most of the rest are drug users), Hepatitis B (8 times more likely to contract), syphilis (fourteen times more likely to contract) the list goes on and on. Homosexuals account for 80% of the serious sexually transmitted diseases. They are six times more likely to commit suicide (oh, I know, they want to blame that on us Christians.); 25-33% are alcoholics. They are even 18 times more likely to be involved in fatal auto accidents! [Jeffress, p.114] A psychologist told me the other day that the average life expectancy for a homosexual male is----- 42. Gee, I wonder if homosexuality is unhealthy!
But there is a principle prevalent in our culture: tell a lie often enough, and people will begin to believe it. Personally, I feel great care and compassion for homosexuals. Great helplessness, too, as I see them slowly destroying themselves. And I’ve noticed they are not very “gay” (in the original meaning of the word). I have never personally known a Christian man or woman who was bigoted toward, or persecuted, a homosexual person. On the other hand, I know Christians who have served and cared for homosexuals, and who have been at the bedsides of dying AIDS patients. While hating the sin, we deeply love the sinner, just like Jesus. (But I have read lots of truly hateful literature by homosexual activists toward Christians. )
But now, I would like to present arguments for “traditional marriage”, and contrary to so-called “gay marriage”, that should resonate even in a secular culture:
Heterosexual marriage affirms that men and women need each other. Even those who do not believe in a Creator cannot deny the obvious physical, as well as spiritual, evidence that man was made for a woman, and woman was made for man. It is not interchangeable, for each brings something different to the union. There is great evidence that married heterosexuals live longer, have better mental and physical health, and suffer less stress. A heterosexual union also greatly benefits the unique needs of children, and of course there are no children without heterosexual union. Not only do men and women need each other in order to reproduce, but also children need a male and a female to meet their unique needs. Children who are raised with a mother and a father grow up healthier, emotionally and physically, than those who have only one parent in their life. Having two parents of the same sex cannot have the same effect of having a mother and a father, for they have completely different roles that compliment one another. Being a male or a female goes beyond body parts. A father brings stability and discipline to a family, and a mother brings nurturing care. By supporting same-sex marriage, a person denies that innate, meaningful and essential differences exist between male and female. Since these differences do exist, it is only logic to say that men need women and women need men.
To say that not allowing homosexuals to marry is taking away rights on which our country was built on is audaciously deceptive! It is not about taking away anyone’s “Constitutional rights” for there has never been a “constitutional right” to homosexual marriage, nor polygamy or group marriage. Preventing homosexuals from being able to marry does not take away anything. It guards against the stealing of something that belongs to others: the purity and goodness of heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.
To redefine marriage is a gigantic expansion of government power. Just as Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Dispatch, “With the stroke of a pen, they radically redefine the most ancient of all social institutions. And then those not quite prepared to accept this undebated, unlegislated, unvoted, unnegotiated revolution are accused of creating a political wedge!”
This is not just an issue about gay rights. This is about marriage and changing its true meaning.
 
The Debate over “GAY MARRIAGE”

“Gay marriage” is in the news a lot these days. May I begin by saying, regardless of what people say, there is no such thing. Marriage is not a human invention; it was brought into being by the Creator, Who in fact performed the first marriage Himself, Genesis 2:18-25. From the beginning it has always been between a man and a woman, as affirmed throughout the Bible, by the Prophets, by Christ, and by the Apostles. It is thus not “old-fashioned”; it is in fact eternal, and not up for a vote. We are living in God’s universe: eating His food, drinking His water, breathing His air, and He gets to make the rules. He thinks He is God, you see; but many people think that they are their own gods (Gen.3:5). Only a “wicked and adulterous generation” (Matt 16:4), one which “neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (see Romans 1:18-32), could even consider the possibility of marriage between two of the same sex. And that sound of distant thunder could be the storm clouds of the judgment of God heading our way. Yes, I know, this must mean that I am “narrow-minded, judgmental, bigoted”. But it would be hard to verify such an opinion by the actual facts. I have known many homosexual persons, and none could ever claim that I did not treat them with kindness and respect, as though they were made in the “image and likeness of God”. I personally ministered to a homosexual man in every way possible, until he died of AIDS. It is because I love and care about homosexuals that I cannot pretend everything is “OK”. The easiest thing to do is to just ignore the plight of others, and look the other way as they destroy themselves. But maybe when God puts up the “no trespassing” sign, He is not just trying to ruin someone’s fun. Maybe He knows more than they do, and is trying to protect them. Look at the facts. Aside from the moral issue, homosexuality is a profoundly unhealthy behavior. Ask any doctor or nurse! HIV, full blown AIDS (85% of all cases; most of the rest are drug users), Hepatitis B (8 times more likely to contract), syphilis (fourteen times more likely to contract) the list goes on and on. Homosexuals account for 80% of the serious sexually transmitted diseases. They are six times more likely to commit suicide (oh, I know, they want to blame that on us Christians.); 25-33% are alcoholics. They are even 18 times more likely to be involved in fatal auto accidents! [Jeffress, p.114] A psychologist told me the other day that the average life expectancy for a homosexual male is----- 42. Gee, I wonder if homosexuality is unhealthy!
But there is a principle prevalent in our culture: tell a lie often enough, and people will begin to believe it.
Great post, erdrothacker! Couldn’t have said it better.
 
I am wondering why states even have “marriage” laws?
No state or country invented marriage, so why should
they sanction them in any way?
And why discriminate against singles, or treat married
and single people differently?
Anytime a state creats a special class, others excluded
from the special class will petition to join it.
Why not rid our legal systems of such special classes?
Are not we all considered in law to be equal?

My state (Iowa) can take their marriage license and
shove it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top