Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Alisa]

Sedonaman (I hope I got your name right) – I know TV shows are really bad right now. However, because of that, I don’t watch sitcoms or anything like that. I enjoy reality shows such as The Amazing Race, Axmen (about loggers in the Pacific Northwest, where I live), and Deadliest Catch. I think that’s the best thing we can do – just avoid TV that offends us. I know a lot of people watch things like American Idol and Survivor too (we don’t).

A lot of magazines are pretty bad too, have you noticed? What is your suggestion as to what we can do about this? I try not to worry about what I can’t change. Is there a list online somewhere where we can see which sponsors are involved with some of the more disgusting shows? I say: 1) Don’t watch, and 2) Don’t buy anything from the sponsors.

I guess we’re a little off-topic here, though.

For the record, I hardly put in the same category a couple of gay people who have found one another and are living quietly and supportively together. The individuals I know who are gay would certainly not have actualy chosen that difficult lifestyle. That’s another matter, and though I guess it’s still not official, I am sure it will be concluded eventually that being gay is something inborn that cannot be helped. Will you then consider it a deadly sin?

Alisa

 

[Alisa]

I agree that marriage as an institution is in trouble these days because of a casual attitude toward divorce, lots of adulterous behavior, etc., etc.

But each one of us Catholics can still live out our own marriages according to what spouses should be to one another. My husband and I, for the 44 years we’ve been married, have certainly had some rough periods, especially in our early years. But with determination and respect for one another, we have worked through them.

A relative of mine (not within my own group of kids) is in a gay union. From some of the things seen posted here, people seem to think we should turn our backs on this individual or preach to her. She is the way she is, period. We are not judging her, because we have always loved her and still do.

I’ve noticed so many people in these posts and other places are so puffed-up with self-righteousness when they compare themselves with others that I don’t know how they find the time to live the struggles of their own sinfulness.

Alisa

 

[SHW]

For the record, I hardly put in the same category a couple of gay people who have found one another and are living quietly and supportively together. The individuals I know who are gay would certainly not have actualy chosen that difficult lifestyle. That’s another matter, and though I guess it’s still not official, I am sure it will be concluded eventually that being gay is something inborn that cannot be helped. Will you then consider it a deadly sin?

A relative of mine (not within my own group of kids) is in a gay union. From some of the things seen posted here, people seem to think we should turn our backs on this individual or preach to her. She is the way she is, period. We are not judging her, because we have always loved her and still do.

I’ve noticed so many people in these posts and other places are so puffed-up with self-righteousness when they compare themselves with others that I don’t know how they find the time to live the struggles of their own sinfulness.

Alisa

So, because we state the inerrant Word of God, this makes us “puffed up with righteousness?”

Homosexual acts are not normal and will never be normal in God’s eyes. He is the same today, yesterday, and forever. Every person who engages in these sinful acts and who does not repent before death will spend eternity in hell. It does not get any plainer than this in God’s Word. You can choose to believe it or not.

Jesus did not say to hate homosexuals or other sinners. On the contrary, we are supposed to pray for them. But, we are not supposed to condone their lifestyle in any shape or form and if we do, then we are also guilty of sinning.

James 4:17 “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.”

Galatians 6:7 “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”

2 Timothy 2:19 “Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”

If you “name” yourself (call yourself) “Christian” then your life has to honor Christ’s name instead of bringing shame to His name. To be a Christian, you must imitate Christ. Whatever you do to others, whether good or evil, you do to Christ. (cf. Matthew 25:40)

Ephesians 5:3-4 “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.”

Since God does not create men and women in order to condemn them, then He certainly did not deliberately create some persons to be homosexuals! (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

So, if you truly love your relative, then you will pray for her and when given the chance, you will encourage her to become celibate for her entire life so that she can inherit eternal life. This is “true” love.

 

[Alisa]

In my opinion, SHW, we should not take the Bible word for word at face value, but rather take the time to really study the meaning behind what Jesus meant.

It would be nice if things were black and white, word for word and simple – it would be much easier. But the fact is, much, much more lies behind the words of Jesus, which have been translated, retranslated, and again retranslated over the centuries. We need to pray for discernment and read Bible commentary by trusted experts.

Just my opinion –

Alisa

 

[fix]

In my opinion, SHW, we should not take the Bible word for word at face value, but rather take the time to really study the meaning behind what Jesus meant.

It would be nice if things were black and white, word for word and simple – it would be much easier. But the fact is, much, much more lies behind the words of Jesus, which have been translated, retranslated, and again retranslated over the centuries. We need to pray for discernment and read Bible commentary by trusted experts.

Just my opinion –

Alisa

We have a living magisterium that speaks as Christ in these matters. We do not have to stumble around in the dark. The truth is this matter is black and white.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

In my opinion, SHW, we should not take the Bible word for word at face value, but rather take the time to really study the meaning behind what Jesus meant.

It would be nice if things were black and white, word for word and simple – it would be much easier. But the fact is, much, much more lies behind the words of Jesus, which have been translated, retranslated, and again retranslated over the centuries. We need to pray for discernment and read Bible commentary by trusted experts.

Just my opinion –

Alisa

I couldn’t agree more. It seems that many of the Catholics on this board are subscribing to the evangelical style Bible parsing I thought/hoped I left behind when I joined the faith. I do believe God’s best plan for a man and a woman is to marry, have children and raise them together. My experience agrees with yours that no one I know who is gay chose that path and would be the first thing they would change if they had the ability to. I feel it is hypocritical to throw stones at gay’s for their sins when every one of us sins every single day, falling short of God’s best plan for us.

I think Christ showed very well that the religious understandings and painting the world in two colors was not correct. The intent of the law was not to punish or condemn, rather the spirit of it was to deal with the heart. Men (and women) who concentrate on the letter often violate the very spirit of the law which again was one of Christ’s main themes when he dealt with the religious establishment of his day. Christ never protested against Caesar nor advocated changing Rome. The disciples were more than willing to take up swords and pre-judge others. The bottom line for me is I want to be more like Christ and less like his well meaning but imperfect followers.

 

[sedonaman]

We have a living magisterium that speaks as Christ in these matters. We do not have to stumble around in the dark. The truth is this matter is black and white.

 

[toughcritic]

Ladybri, with all respect: You say gay marriage would not “reflect in good light” our country, and then you go on to say the institution of marriage would be “cheapened”.

Not to me, my friend! I have been married for a very long time, and if gay marriages were performed, it would not change my views nor spirituality nor respect for traditional marriage one iota. I believe in living my own life and don’t need any sort of “backup of numbers” who believe the same as I in order to feel comfortable with my own views.

I don’t feel that everybody has to live and think like me in order to feel safe and “right”, in other words.

Probably somebody will now say, “But God says…”. Yes He does. But not all of us Americans have had God revealed to us in the same way we Christians have.

Societies have to evolve in humane ways in order to survive.

Alisa

Your answer and response troubles me greatly. So many times I hear the pro homosexuals quote the Bible and say “God’s love is eternal. He is all merciful”. Yes, I believe that too, but, He also said “Go and sin no more”! There are parameters for everylthing in life. There is law, structure and order, all for a reason. An apple is not an orange. A chicken is not a duck. Marriage is a union, created by God, between one man and one woman for purposes of procreation of the species and cohesion in family life. To call any other pairing “marriage” is inaccurate and perverse. To say you believe in tradtional marriage and can accept others views of marriage and it doesn’t affect your spirituality or your own views is a cop out. What extremes must society accept to “live and let live”? Do any aberrant behaviors not affect you, pedophelia, prostitution, drug dealing, mercy killilng, abortion ? All of these tear down society and weakens the culture to a point of numbing them against all that goes against God’s wishes. Our culture is in a dangerous slide to the perverse in many ways. Making the immoral acceptable is only another chink in the armour that is growing weaker and weaker by the day.

 

[sedonaman]

…
I think Christ showed very well that the religious understandings and painting the world in two colors was not correct. The intent of the law was not to punish or condemn, rather the spirit of it was to deal with the heart. Men (and women) who concentrate on the letter often violate the very spirit of the law which again was one of Christ’s main themes when he dealt with the religious establishment of his day. …

Those who subscribe to this line of reasoning like to use as an example the story of the woman caught in adultery. They point to Christ’s forgiveness, which is all well and good, but by conveniently overlooking the second part, “… and commit this sin no more,” they make the quantum leap into hyperspace and conclude that Christ abolished the idea of sin. He did no such thing.

For the sake of us “evangelical Bible parsers” who think in only “two colors,” just exactly what is, “the spirit of it was to deal with the heart” supposed to mean?

 

[sedonaman]

… if gay marriages were performed, it would not change my views nor spirituality nor respect for traditional marriage one iota. I believe in living my own life and don’t need any sort of “backup of numbers” who believe the same as I in order to feel comfortable with my own views.

I don’t feel that everybody has to live and think like me in order to feel safe and “right”, in other words.
…

When good ceases to be our goal and is replaced by tolerance, a political vacuum is created, whether you know it or not. Something will move in to fill it, and I guarantee you won’t like it, because it will be evil. Consider this:

As the older Western understandings on which Liberalism was originally grounded were tossed onto the ash heap by our increasingly secular society, Liberalism emerged as an autonomous force, detached from any cultural or moral framework that could contain its demands. Under this new dispensation, liberal values such as equality and non-discrimination were no longer judged according to a comprehensive standard of the good that included both universalist and particularist elements; rather, the liberal values were now seen as simply identical with the good, and anyone advocating them as a good person. At the same time, any vestige of perceived inequality or discrimination (that is, anything that still remained of the inherited institutions and habits of our civilization, ranging from the rule of law to national identity to the marriage-based nuclear family to much of the ordinary give and take of daily life) came to be regarded as vicious obstructions to true progress that had to be eliminated, reconstructed, or suppressed.

Thus politically correct America wages hysterical crusades against ethnic slurs or sexual comments by private individuals, while shrugging its shoulders at gross criminality and possible treason by the President – if he is seen as a sufficiently “tolerant” and “inclusive” person. Thus the modern liberal regime bans the merest breath of the Christian religion in public schools, while subsidizing student clubs devoted to witchcraft. Thus the mainstream media routinely attack the “oppressive” and “racist” police, while ignoring the criminality of the criminals whom the police are “oppressing.” These inversions of decency and sanity are not the work of anarchists. They are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern Liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated. In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good. … The problem described here points to its own solution, which is to abandon the modern liberal ideology that identifies morality with powerlessness, and return to traditional moral standards.

Unlike today’s cultural Leninism that defines men’s moral worth as the inverse of their perceived degree of power or of their attachment to established ways of life, traditional morality judges the intrinsic moral qualities of men’s actions, and so is capable of seeing and stopping real evil when it appears. By contrast, as said at the beginning, a people that defines the good as tolerance must inevitably end up tolerating evil, even the evil of terrorist killers. Indeed, such a people must ultimately lose the authority to enforce any standards at all, since standards can be enforced only by a society’s dominant culture, and a dominant culture, as a dominant culture, is, by [the liberal tolerant] definition, “unequal” and “exclusive” and thus illegitimate.

If, therefore, we truly desire to live in a society that can effectively resist the evil of terrorism, or any evil for that matter, we must do two things: (1) define the good not as tolerance but as behavior in accordance with the moral law; and (2) affirm the legitimacy – and thus the moral authority – of our particular nation and its historically dominant culture.

Once we lose the authority to enforce any standards, organized society as we know it will be over, and chaos will ensue. Then people will demand a restoration of order, and you-know-who will step up to the plate and offer it.

 

[cait]

From a legal, non-religious point of view, marriage is more than a contractual relationship between two individuals. It is the state’s (meaning society’s) way of providing special privileges and assistance and support to those who are capable of mainataining the state’s population and ensuring that those reproduced will grow up to be stable, healthy citizens. Since only hetero sexual intercourse can produce children, only heterosexuals should receive the benefits of marriage (even though some heterosexuals may be incapable of, or choose not to reproduce, they are still the class of people who can serve society in this way). Experience and common sense show that in general, a child does best being reared by both a mother and a father. Why else does nature create two genders? (Nature could have had us reproduce asexually).

Also, the argument that those who are emotionally and sexually attracted to one another should be able to marry, then requires that marriage be redefined to include polygamy, incest, group marriages or even marriage with an animal. And that society should financially and socially support these various unions with all the benefits of marriage.

 

[fix]

I couldn’t agree more. It seems that many of the Catholics on this board are subscribing to the evangelical style Bible parsing I thought/hoped I left behind when I joined the faith. I do believe God’s best plan for a man and a woman is to marry, have children and raise them together. My experience agrees with yours that no one I know who is gay chose that path and would be the first thing they would change if they had the ability to. I feel it is hypocritical to throw stones at gay’s for their sins when every one of us sins every single day, falling short of God’s best plan for us.

I think Christ showed very well that the religious understandings and painting the world in two colors was not correct. The intent of the law was not to punish or condemn, rather the spirit of it was to deal with the heart. Men (and women) who concentrate on the letter often violate the very spirit of the law which again was one of Christ’s main themes when he dealt with the religious establishment of his day. Christ never protested against Caesar nor advocated changing Rome. The disciples were more than willing to take up swords and pre-judge others. The bottom line for me is I want to be more like Christ and less like his well meaning but imperfect followers.

Catholics bind themselves to the barque of Peter. Christ said of the Apostles he who hears you hears Me. We do not embrace the error of moral relativism that includes private interpretation of Scripture that contradicts His Church.

 

[ladybri77]

Neither “rule” and that is the point I am trying to make. Each side respects the others choice or tradition and the right to choose differently. The use of civil law to enforce a belief, choice or tradition on someone else results in the other person to be deprived of the God given right of to choose. Our country was founded on this singular principle enumerated in the bill of rights within our Constitution. The tenth being most important stating that all other powers (freedoms, rights) are reserved to the individual. This was something that religious and secular educated men once agreed upon.

We’re just trying to keep the original fundamental meaning of marriage which was put forth by the state AND God over hundreds of years ago, one of the reasons being to protect our children and society from further immoral intrusions in the school. A book has recently been introduced outlining a gay couple who has a child for the sake of acceptance of this lifestyle which is being read and taught in schools right now. It has a picture of two gay penguins with a baby penguin with them on the cover. This is totally unacceptable to me. Teach them to treat others who are different with respect, but please don’t push the agenda that one should accept this lifestyle on my child!

Also, we want to ward off future “groups” from trying to gain their rights and further trying to change the minds of people and “searing” consciences as to the wrongness of immoral acts and indecent behavior of any kind which destroy society. What other group will now try to come forward to have “legal” rights which, I might add, have also NEVER been legalized or accepted in the past who will now want similar “rights”? Incest is now being legalized in Europe.

Where will this lead and who will be next to come forward in the United States? Polygamists, zooists, incestors??? Where will it all end?

 

[ladybri77]

Catholics bind themselves to the barque of Peter. Christ said of the Apostles he who hears you hears Me. We do not embrace the error of moral relativism that includes private interpretation of Scripture that contradicts His Church.

Amen, brother! “God will not be mocked”!

 

[Alisa]

Beautifully said, FromtheCrossroads, and I totally agree with you!

Many of the people who post at CAF seem to be extremely conservative and more fundamentalist in their approach, which is fine and to be respected. You sound like a convert? As you’ve probably learned by now, many, if not most, Catholics have a quite different approach to living their Catholic faith, particularly at some of the wonderful Catholic universities and also at the parish level.

One of the things I’ve always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that there is a certain openness and a loving attitude toward people to whom God has revealed Himself differently – Islamic and Jewish people, for just two examples.

I love your point about early Christians not trying to control the Roman government – “Render to Caesar,” etc.

Your post was like a breath of fresh air – thanks!

Alisa

 

[ladybri77]

I love your point about early Christians not trying to control the Roman government – “Render to Caesar,” etc.

Your post was like a breath of fresh air – thanks!

Alisa

He was talking about taxes to be rendered to Caesar, not immoral laws.

 

[fix]

I’ve noticed so many people in these posts and other places are so puffed-up with self-righteousness when they compare themselves with others that I don’t know how they find the time to live the struggles of their own sinfulness.

Alisa

I have not seen that here. I have seen posts that defend marriage and defend the faith.

Part of the problem is that we really do not view issues like this as they ought to be viewed. We look at it through a secular perspective rather than with the eyes of faith. The last pope referred to this notion of “marriage” as a new ideology of evil. Now why do you think it was said it that way? To be hurtful to others? No, to place it in perspective.

If this were about being against drunk driving and people held the same positions would you still claim others were being puffed up?

 

[ladybri77]

and though I guess it’s still not official, I am sure it will be concluded eventually that being gay is something inborn that cannot be helped. Will you then consider it a deadly sin?

Alisa

If they act out on it and don’t know Jesus, then yes, as Scripture says… if you believe Scripture is God’s Holy Word.

 

[fix]

He was talking about taxes to be rendered to Caesar, not immoral laws.

That’s right. The Catholic understanding is much deeper and broader than the non Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition that tries to minimalize the Gospel imperative.

 

[fix]

and though I guess it’s still not official, I am sure it will be concluded eventually that being gay is something inborn that cannot be helped. Will you then consider it a deadly sin?

Alisa

It is not about being “official” it is about eternal Truth. We each are born with all manner of disordered inclinations. That is not a sin. What is a sin is acting on our disordered inclinations.