F
fix
Guest
Marriage is a natural institution and the state has an obligation to protect it. No one is advocating unjust discrimination. What we are talking about is protecting the family and the state has a role.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Not sure of your position, but I see many suddenly claiming the state should play no role in marriage. This is contrary to our history and is the result of the culture of death and moral realtivism gaining converts.
The problem is not that the state regulates marriage. The problem is our culture now redefines what is true. The answer is not less state protection of the family. The answer is more Catholics acting like Catholics, that means voters, politicians, and law-makers.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I am not clear where you come from with this position. The Church in fact traditionally frowned upon excessive State involvement in marriage, and in fact the increaseda activism of the State on this issue stems largely from the 1848 era in Europe- hardly an era which we as Catholics should harken back to.
The traditional view is that the State only has the power to recognize that which is- the Catholic sacrament of marriage and its “spinoff” natural law marriage. No other may suffice. The State did not claim the power to define marriage (only acknowledging that Church teaching on the matter was true) and did not define the institution legally (the Church already did that). Contracts involving marital benefits were drawn according to circumstance, not the “one size fits all” license abberation that exists today. Somehow for thousands of years we survived without marriage licenses yet now some are claiming that a “properly defined” one is the cure all.
Pope Leo XIII Arcanum, On Christian Marriage:
- Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; 'hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
- Nevertheless, the naturalists,(32) as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion…As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.
S
sadinoel
Guest
First of all:
I am a Catholic (but not Roman) straight male who is married with kids and I abhor homosexuality, along with all other sins. I am also a sinner like everyone else here and in the entire world. I’ve been saved by the blood of my Lord Jesus Christ and I do my best to be faithful every day, although I am not perfect.
That being said…
Let me ask all of you who are so against allowing homos to have a civil union this simple question:
Why should your view on homo civil unions carry more weight than (for example) a Muslim’s view, or a Wiccan’s view, or a Hindu’s view, or an Atheist’s view, or an Agnostic’s view, or a Buddhist’s view, or anyone else’s freakin view?
The reason we live in a stinking democracy is to prevent the Muslims, Hindu’s, Atheists, and yes Christians from imposing their belief system on us without representation. How would you like it if all of a sudden our children were required to learn Zen in school? This is the reason we have a democracy people, and although I disagree with homosexual marriage, I support the rights of people to VOTE on issues like this and will support the decisions that allow us to live in a FREE SOCIETY.
In Iran, homos are hanged… but you would not want to be a Christian there either now would ya?
The sword cuts both ways people. Get your head’s out of the sand because if you don’t you are ignoring the truth about the world we live in (but are not part of) and thus are not only incapable of making changes for the better, but worse, you contribute to the enemy’s increasing stranglehold on the world. We can not fight Satan in this way.
Vote against homosexual marriage and speak your mind… however please recognize that we also all benefit from the same protection these laws provide to the homos… so when/if they do “win” a civil right, you have to respect it under our constitution. You do not have to agree. If you don’t respect it, you cause a loss of credibility for Christians and make us all look like hypocrites with double standards.
Oh and as to the post above this one… get over it. I agree that the state SHOULD NOT PLAY A ROLE but REALITY IS THAT IN THIS COUNTRY IT DOES so stop with the nonsense.
Peace
I am a Catholic (but not Roman) straight male who is married with kids and I abhor homosexuality, along with all other sins. I am also a sinner like everyone else here and in the entire world. I’ve been saved by the blood of my Lord Jesus Christ and I do my best to be faithful every day, although I am not perfect.
That being said…
Let me ask all of you who are so against allowing homos to have a civil union this simple question:
Why should your view on homo civil unions carry more weight than (for example) a Muslim’s view, or a Wiccan’s view, or a Hindu’s view, or an Atheist’s view, or an Agnostic’s view, or a Buddhist’s view, or anyone else’s freakin view?
The reason we live in a stinking democracy is to prevent the Muslims, Hindu’s, Atheists, and yes Christians from imposing their belief system on us without representation. How would you like it if all of a sudden our children were required to learn Zen in school? This is the reason we have a democracy people, and although I disagree with homosexual marriage, I support the rights of people to VOTE on issues like this and will support the decisions that allow us to live in a FREE SOCIETY.
In Iran, homos are hanged… but you would not want to be a Christian there either now would ya?
The sword cuts both ways people. Get your head’s out of the sand because if you don’t you are ignoring the truth about the world we live in (but are not part of) and thus are not only incapable of making changes for the better, but worse, you contribute to the enemy’s increasing stranglehold on the world. We can not fight Satan in this way.
Vote against homosexual marriage and speak your mind… however please recognize that we also all benefit from the same protection these laws provide to the homos… so when/if they do “win” a civil right, you have to respect it under our constitution. You do not have to agree. If you don’t respect it, you cause a loss of credibility for Christians and make us all look like hypocrites with double standards.
Oh and as to the post above this one… get over it. I agree that the state SHOULD NOT PLAY A ROLE but REALITY IS THAT IN THIS COUNTRY IT DOES so stop with the nonsense.
Peace
J
JimG
Guest
The citizens of California did vote on this–twice–both times rejecting same sex marriage. That should have settled the matter. Yet the gay marriage lobby is now pushing to overturn the results of the vote.
Many states have recently adopted laws or constitutional amendments as the result of public votes, which reiterate that marriage is between one man and one woman. That should settle it.
L
ladybri77
Guest
Here are a few good reasons: If we allow immorality to do whatever it wants, legalizing immoral unions, then who knows where it would lead. Like another poster said, our children will eventually be taught (by law) in schools that acting out homosexually is okay. Yes, we need to accept all people, but we do not have to accept their lifestyle, and I wouldn’t want my kids to be taught this. They are already trying to legalize incest in Europe. Who knows where this legalizing same sex marriage will lead to next in the U.S. Maybe legalizing polygamy? Incest?
We have a moral obligation as Christians to stand up for morality (not just our faith, but the morality this nation was founded on) and vote against laws which stand for immorality and against the common good so that it doesn’t eventually become rampant in our society. Civility rings a bell.
E
edwest2
Guest
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. It’s about power and control.
And religion in the United States? When I was growing up, there was a Nativity in front of the local City Hall – for years. You didn’t have to bow to it or leave money in it or even look at it. Then the ACLU woke up one day – Hey! You can’t have that there! And then the ACLU marched into public buildings and said – Hey! What’re the Ten Commandments doing here?! Out!!
And the ACLU said, we’re protecting your religious rights by the way. Yeah, right.
Now, if you want a Nativity in front of a public building, the ACLU will let you if you throw in a plastic Santa and some reindeer. The goal? To get people thinking that Jesus was just as “real” as the plastic Santa and reindeer.
Gay people are doing what they want behind closed doors but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.
Peace,
Ed
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
You may feel how you want about how others react to this issue, but to dismiss those who hold principled positions over pragmatic ones is not charitable or admirable. Your position appears to favor the American way over Christ’s way. If so, fine, but to expect that others should abandon positions because it isn’t “reality” is unreasonable and ridiculous. The whole reason we are in this mess is because we keep conceding inches and miles to the enemy due to our “facing reality.” I for one am tired of saying “well, we will win eventually so why sit this one out.” Unless we hold firm to principal, and inch our way back, we will only ever loss more ground and wake up to find ourselves defeated. Think about it: Did a football team ever win conceding more yards to other team?
The Church teaching is what it is. If I do not hold to this with the expectation that it will be victorious in the temporal sphere, I have no right to be called Catholic. We are victorious because of Christ, and not despite Him.
E
edwest2
Guest
Unfortunately, people have been trained to create friction and emotion to push their idea through. There are absolute truths and bedrock principles. We can’t do whatever we want, although that certainly doesn’t stop some people from trying. Let’s be obedient to Church teaching and understand it. There is natural law and spiritual law.
Whenever a different perspective is introduced, it suggests there are no absolutes or that opinions somehow invalidate certain truths. Let’s not obscure clear Church teaching with contemporary opinions.
Peace,
Ed
Whenever a different perspective is introduced, it suggests there are no absolutes or that opinions somehow invalidate certain truths. Let’s not obscure clear Church teaching with contemporary opinions.
Peace,
Ed
M
Maso
Guest
*“Same Sex Marraige”… *is an attempt on the part of minions of the devil to desecrate the sacrament of marraige… isn’t it…? 
S
StephenFrancis
Guest
I am just going to ask us all for a short moment, on all sides of this volatile issue, to guard ourselves in how we word our views in this (and for that matter all) threads. As I have mentioned before, I am a Catholic Christian with SSA (same sex attraction) inclinations. Who I am is a child of God by the mercy of Jesus Christ, ***What ***I have as a cross to deal with is SSA. Oh, and death, taxes, illness, and family–just like all of us. We are not as different as we may think.
Of late one posting labeled us as “homos.” While that term may be technically accurate, especially in print it can appear angry and uncharitable–I am not saying it was meant that way, but please remember that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) people, some who are for the “cause” of same sex unions, as I once was not many years ago, read this forum also. And all who are reading or adding to this debate deserve respect from each other.
We are here to have lively debate, but never to stir up needless hurt or anger between groups who already deeply distrust each other (such as gays and the Church) and at times in our zeal for the truth the lines can easily blur between “hating the sin and hating the sinner.”
I agree that there is a strong political agenda going on within the more radical elements of the gay community, but there is also a spiritual war for the souls of all of us, whether homosexual or heterosexual. If, 4 years ago, I had read a few of the posts from the last 2 days and how some of them have been worded as this discussion has heated up, I may indeed have thought twice before returning to the Church.
We are our “brother’s (and sister’s) keepers.” And that is whether they are homosexual, Catholic, Muslim, pro-life, pro-choice, or any other controversial group. You may say, “truth is truth,” but how we present it does matter. At age 53 I cannot explain to any of you why I have felt those inclinations since age 11, but I am thankful God does not judge me on them, but rather on my behavior. Subtle digs such as calling us “homos” or saying that we from that background or lifestyle are (or in my case were) conspiring en masse to ruin marriage for others are just not true nor fair minded generalizations. Many of us were just plain ignorant and in need of kindness, and desperately so. Truth, yes, but please always let it be said in such a way that can be heard by those who may currently oppose your views but are secretly listening. I was one of those people.
Thanks for hearing me out, family, and God bless!
Of late one posting labeled us as “homos.” While that term may be technically accurate, especially in print it can appear angry and uncharitable–I am not saying it was meant that way, but please remember that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) people, some who are for the “cause” of same sex unions, as I once was not many years ago, read this forum also. And all who are reading or adding to this debate deserve respect from each other.
We are here to have lively debate, but never to stir up needless hurt or anger between groups who already deeply distrust each other (such as gays and the Church) and at times in our zeal for the truth the lines can easily blur between “hating the sin and hating the sinner.”
I agree that there is a strong political agenda going on within the more radical elements of the gay community, but there is also a spiritual war for the souls of all of us, whether homosexual or heterosexual. If, 4 years ago, I had read a few of the posts from the last 2 days and how some of them have been worded as this discussion has heated up, I may indeed have thought twice before returning to the Church.
We are our “brother’s (and sister’s) keepers.” And that is whether they are homosexual, Catholic, Muslim, pro-life, pro-choice, or any other controversial group. You may say, “truth is truth,” but how we present it does matter. At age 53 I cannot explain to any of you why I have felt those inclinations since age 11, but I am thankful God does not judge me on them, but rather on my behavior. Subtle digs such as calling us “homos” or saying that we from that background or lifestyle are (or in my case were) conspiring en masse to ruin marriage for others are just not true nor fair minded generalizations. Many of us were just plain ignorant and in need of kindness, and desperately so. Truth, yes, but please always let it be said in such a way that can be heard by those who may currently oppose your views but are secretly listening. I was one of those people.
Thanks for hearing me out, family, and God bless!
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you, Stephen, for that post. All of us contain a fatal flaw called sin.
As I think you know, part of any war is demonizing the enemy; turning him or her into a caricature so that the forces of one side can motivate the “troops.”
The issue of gay marriage appeared recently and suddenly. I have followed it and can only draw this conclusion: the goal is to regard gay marriages as the 100% equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Nothing less. The only retreat has been to the fall back position of civil unions but that just leads to courts and judicial decisions. Which just leads to gay marriage.
It would be one thing if this was an issue between the two people involved, but the wider effect is being seen in Massachusetts where the state is forcing kids in grade school to read a gay story book. Kids who are in their formative years are being exposed to this and their parents cannot opt out.
The publication First Things has published an article titled Beyond Gay Marriage. A group of intellectuals and others, including Gloria Steinem, have signed onto another definition of family that includes multiple conjugal partners.
I watched the sexual revolution in progress in the late 1960s. It even began to appear in the early 1970s in Catholic high school. The Establishment, or established order, was the enemy. The freedom desired was not about love or improving the relations between the sexes but about pleasure only. That was the goal. “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”
Then all I heard was that Catholics were sexually repressed. We were told it was wrong to have sex outside of marriage and not to cheat on your spouse. The media kept amping up the skin and suggestive situations on TV and in the movies and porn being sold everywhere did not help.
For Catholics, we were like frogs in pots of cool water. The heat got turned up a little and too many thought, Oh, that’s not so bad. A little more. A little more. Till today.
Our only course of action as Catholics is to follow Church teaching. We should understand Church teaching and be able to articulate it. For single people, chastity. For married people, no cheating. But the outside world is continuing to put porn in gas stations, in supermarkets, on cable, on satellite, on whatever medium they can put it. Some “singers” are practically strippers. And so many things are now regarded as acceptable or average or normal, that too many people, including Catholics, have lost their way. Too many are living, as a priest said on Catholic Radio, as Agnostics.
But back to gay marriage. Even though a set of legal instruments are in place, or could be created, to address the rights aspect, this is rejected out of hand. If you read the Church documents referring to gay marriage, you will see the explanation.
I sincerely hope that you and others reading this understand the Church’s position. Already, others are lining up for their rights and consensual incest is legal in a few countries. The Church has a point we need to consider: the stable, procreative married couple bring us the next generation and the family is the starting point for most of us and the society we live in.
Peace,
Ed
As I think you know, part of any war is demonizing the enemy; turning him or her into a caricature so that the forces of one side can motivate the “troops.”
The issue of gay marriage appeared recently and suddenly. I have followed it and can only draw this conclusion: the goal is to regard gay marriages as the 100% equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Nothing less. The only retreat has been to the fall back position of civil unions but that just leads to courts and judicial decisions. Which just leads to gay marriage.
It would be one thing if this was an issue between the two people involved, but the wider effect is being seen in Massachusetts where the state is forcing kids in grade school to read a gay story book. Kids who are in their formative years are being exposed to this and their parents cannot opt out.
The publication First Things has published an article titled Beyond Gay Marriage. A group of intellectuals and others, including Gloria Steinem, have signed onto another definition of family that includes multiple conjugal partners.
I watched the sexual revolution in progress in the late 1960s. It even began to appear in the early 1970s in Catholic high school. The Establishment, or established order, was the enemy. The freedom desired was not about love or improving the relations between the sexes but about pleasure only. That was the goal. “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”
Then all I heard was that Catholics were sexually repressed. We were told it was wrong to have sex outside of marriage and not to cheat on your spouse. The media kept amping up the skin and suggestive situations on TV and in the movies and porn being sold everywhere did not help.
For Catholics, we were like frogs in pots of cool water. The heat got turned up a little and too many thought, Oh, that’s not so bad. A little more. A little more. Till today.
Our only course of action as Catholics is to follow Church teaching. We should understand Church teaching and be able to articulate it. For single people, chastity. For married people, no cheating. But the outside world is continuing to put porn in gas stations, in supermarkets, on cable, on satellite, on whatever medium they can put it. Some “singers” are practically strippers. And so many things are now regarded as acceptable or average or normal, that too many people, including Catholics, have lost their way. Too many are living, as a priest said on Catholic Radio, as Agnostics.
But back to gay marriage. Even though a set of legal instruments are in place, or could be created, to address the rights aspect, this is rejected out of hand. If you read the Church documents referring to gay marriage, you will see the explanation.
I sincerely hope that you and others reading this understand the Church’s position. Already, others are lining up for their rights and consensual incest is legal in a few countries. The Church has a point we need to consider: the stable, procreative married couple bring us the next generation and the family is the starting point for most of us and the society we live in.
Peace,
Ed
J
jean8
Guest
Ed,
Yes, homosexual is a sin, which The Lord hates.
God has given us a choice on the type of life we want to live.
The Bible clearly teaches this lifestyle is a sinful perversion. Please read Rom.1:24-32
The verses toward the end reminds us of other sins as well.
We will all give an account for our choices at the judgement seat someday.
But, I’m preaching to the choir.
I know that you are aware of sin because you are a believing christian.See also 1Cor.6:9-10, Lev.18:22
God bless,
jean
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Stephen, you prove my point entirely. In any discussion discourse should be civil. Thank you.
This is why I am making an argument to remove State involvement. When it becomes involved people feel like their “turf” is “threatened” since the State (theoretically, anyway) can only have one uniform policy for all. If this became a private matter again, it would just be us disagreeing over beliefs and opinions, not our very societal norms. Give the power to the State to define something, and in good hands you will be fine, but in the wrong hands, you will be threatened. Let us not make this mistake with marriage.
M
mystagogia
Guest
I don’t think I’m following you, EnchantedEve. Are you saying that we should have gay marriage (by getting the state out of the marriage business) so that we will preserve the societal norm?
S
StephenFrancis
Guest
I think my latest post is being possibly somewhat misunderstood here, so I would like to stop and clarify it if I may. My entire point is simply that, as we discuss it on this forurm or wherever, we do it with the utmost respect of the journey others are taking. That is it, no more and no less.
Edwest, I do understand that Church teaching on homosexuality. That is why I am celibate, and I have said nothing in this or any other post that would imply otherwise. I also said, in the past, that I supported “gay marriage” but do not do so now. That is also because I too have studied carefully the Church documents, starting with the Catechism, and also pretty much every document from the Vatican and the USCCB on the topic since the 1980s. So I certainly agree with you. If I did not make that clear I apologize, but my biggest concern was that we keep this discussion moving in the direction of more “light than heat.” And a few postings lately have seemed somewhat the opposite to me, but again that may just be perception on my part. However, we just need to remember that we are here to reach out to others who are at many different places in their own journeys, and that was my concern in suggesting that terms such as “homos” or worse are not helpful to that end.
EnchantedEve, I actually did not prove your point, nor was that my intention at all. I suggested kind and loving discourse but not that the State or government should not be involved. If the State is not involved then who actually determines what marriage even is? Anarchy comes quickly when we have no guidelines, and the government does have a place in this debate, as marriage is both civil and religious in nature. Edwest brought up a very important point regarding the fact that other forms "Beyond Gay Marriage’ are cropping up and being advocated, and also that small children are being forced to read books in elementary school about this whole topic far before they are ready to even understand the ramifications. That is certainly government involvement.
So I genuinely appreciate your support, but must state that we do not share the same position on this. In fact in Canada and other places where gay marriage is the law of the land, religious persecution is beginning to occur to those who do not agree–and it is coming from radicals in the GLBT community. Those types of things are exactly what opened my eyes to what was occurring and pointed me, thankfully, in the direction of the Church. Also thankfully it was generally presented to me with kindness and love, and that is why I am appealing to this forum to be very careful to do the same. Others such as I was are watching how we as Catholic Christians handle our disagreements. That was all I was and am saying here.
In any case thanks to both of you and God bless.
Edwest, I do understand that Church teaching on homosexuality. That is why I am celibate, and I have said nothing in this or any other post that would imply otherwise. I also said, in the past, that I supported “gay marriage” but do not do so now. That is also because I too have studied carefully the Church documents, starting with the Catechism, and also pretty much every document from the Vatican and the USCCB on the topic since the 1980s. So I certainly agree with you. If I did not make that clear I apologize, but my biggest concern was that we keep this discussion moving in the direction of more “light than heat.” And a few postings lately have seemed somewhat the opposite to me, but again that may just be perception on my part. However, we just need to remember that we are here to reach out to others who are at many different places in their own journeys, and that was my concern in suggesting that terms such as “homos” or worse are not helpful to that end.
EnchantedEve, I actually did not prove your point, nor was that my intention at all. I suggested kind and loving discourse but not that the State or government should not be involved. If the State is not involved then who actually determines what marriage even is? Anarchy comes quickly when we have no guidelines, and the government does have a place in this debate, as marriage is both civil and religious in nature. Edwest brought up a very important point regarding the fact that other forms "Beyond Gay Marriage’ are cropping up and being advocated, and also that small children are being forced to read books in elementary school about this whole topic far before they are ready to even understand the ramifications. That is certainly government involvement.
So I genuinely appreciate your support, but must state that we do not share the same position on this. In fact in Canada and other places where gay marriage is the law of the land, religious persecution is beginning to occur to those who do not agree–and it is coming from radicals in the GLBT community. Those types of things are exactly what opened my eyes to what was occurring and pointed me, thankfully, in the direction of the Church. Also thankfully it was generally presented to me with kindness and love, and that is why I am appealing to this forum to be very careful to do the same. Others such as I was are watching how we as Catholic Christians handle our disagreements. That was all I was and am saying here.
In any case thanks to both of you and God bless.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I recommend people read my post earlier in this thread so I do not keep repeating my position, but I will put it this way again to clarify.
Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum taught that the State had no role in marriage, nor should it ever. Again, does nobody care at all about papal teaching, being as we are Catholic?
So NO, I am not in favor of homosexual marriage. Why? Because such an animal does not exist. Just as “woman priest” is an oxymoron, so is homosexual marriage. It simply cannot be done, regardless of the charades the State may play.
Somehow we protected Christian marriage for centuries without marriage licenses, and now suddenly they are the indispensible vehical to a glorious societal future. Since when did the State become so darn important?
Who defines marriage? The Church and the Church ALONE. Not the State, not the Courts, not Congress.To say the State has this power is nothing short of extraordinary. Can the State define human life? Can it define Faith? Has the State become infallible in matters of Faith and Morals?!?
We are perfectly capable of having our own marriage contracts without cookie-cutter marriage licenses. If homosexuals want to draw up contracts assigning benefits to each other, fine. Who cares? In the civil sphere, the Church teaches that the State can only recognize that which already is valid. Homosexuals marriages are not valid. Only heterosexual ones are. Let’s guess which ones the State has the authority to authorize.
My solution in brief: Abolish marriage licenses. Let people assign benefits in their own contracts, whether prefab or custom written. Homosexuals want to do that, fine. Does this make it a marriage? No. If a homosexual couple brings a marriage contract to the county, they would reject it. Why? because the same sex cannot be party to such a contract. Can they have a benefits contract? Yes. Marriage would have nothing to do with it. If a heterosexual couple brings a marriage contract, would it be recognized? Yes, because they can both legally be party. Simple. No one size fits all, no you have to marry to get benefits, no homosexual marriage, no government defining marriage. The government is just recognition that which already is, not defining it and giving its permission. This is what a marriage license is, a legal definition with a defined benefits package, with government “permitting” you to marry and recognizing your marriage is “valid”. The State does not have the power to do any of those things, and what I am proposing is to take these powers away.
Am I missing anything?
- Status