Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[cricket36]

I have not read all of the comments but several of the earlier pages, so I may be expressing something that has already been written.

I think the use of the term “Gay marriage” is what is causing a problem here and in the public square.

I also believe that “Marriage” is between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that gay couples should have the protection of the law especially concerning inheritance of property where there is no will; as well as, the right to make decisions for their partner at the end of life just as married people have. In other words, the civil rights of married people should be granted to gay couples also.

The term “marriage” should not be used for the union of a gay couple. I believe their union should be called a “civil union”.

 

[fix]

It is not only the word marriage that is at issue it is the government legalizing so called unions that appear as marriages. Simply calling it by another name is no better.

 

[Alisa]

Fix…I hardly know what to say to you. Once a person has bought into just one “Truth” for all human beings for all times and on all places on earth since the evolution of humankind on earth, why are we even discussing this? That sounds like a terribly rigid way to view things. I’m sorry, I hope I don’t offend you by saying this.

Alisa

 

[ladybri77]

Fix…I hardly know what to say to you. Once a person has bought into just one “Truth” for all human beings for all times and on all places on earth since the evolution of humankind on earth, why are we even discussing this? That sounds like a terribly rigid way to view things. I’m sorry, I hope I don’t offend you by saying this.

Alisa

The Truth that you say fix has bought into is The Truth, the Real Truth, with the man, Jesus, being the One Truth and what His Word teaches.

 

[sedonaman]

…

However, I also believe that gay couples should have the protection of the law especially concerning inheritance of property where there is no will; as well as, the right to make decisions for their partner at the end of life just as married people have. In other words, the civil rights of married people should be granted to gay couples also.

These are faux issues. Why would anyone concerned with these matters not have the legal paperwork drawn up? You can hand-write a will on a blank sheet of paper, sign it, and have two witnesses sign also. Power of attorney for end-of-life should require little more effort.

 

[cait]

I have not read all of the comments but several of the earlier pages, so I may be expressing something that has already been written.

I think the use of the term “Gay marriage” is what is causing a problem here and in the public square.

I also believe that “Marriage” is between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that gay couples should have the protection of the law especially concerning inheritance of property where there is no will; as well as, the right to make decisions for their partner at the end of life just as married people have. In other words, the civil rights of married people should be granted to gay couples also.

The term “marriage” should not be used for the union of a gay couple. I believe their union should be called a “civil union”.

 

[fix]

Fix…I hardly know what to say to you. Once a person has bought into just one “Truth” for all human beings for all times and on all places on earth since the evolution of humankind on earth, why are we even discussing this? That sounds like a terribly rigid way to view things. I’m sorry, I hope I don’t offend you by saying this.

Alisa

Well, the Truth I was speaking about is the only Truth. He is a person, not an idea.

 

[cait]

Civil unions are not legally necessary to provide the kinds of protections you are talking about. They can be provided through a simple contract: that’s what a will does, that’s what a health care proxy does. Providing civil unions is basically used as a stepping stone to same sex marriage. The reasoning for providing rights through civil unions for same sex couples also opens the door for civil unions for polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, “group” sexual relationships.

 

[sedonaman]

…The reasoning for providing rights through civil unions for same sex couples also opens the door for civil unions for polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, “group” sexual relationships.

What is at stake here, as with all liberal/Leftist ideas, is whether or not there should be any standards of conduct at all. Some apparently don’t believe there should be because you have to draw a line separating acceptable from unacceptable conduct, and this means you must judge between the two, hence the attack on judgementalism. Also, wherever you draw it, there will inevitably be those just on the other side clamoring for it to be moved so their behavior can be part of the acceptable, hence the demand for “tolerance” and “inclusion”. So, their obvious solution is elimination of the line so as to allow “tolerance” and “inclusion” for any and all behavior. It sounds so morally high-grounded that anyone who resists should be branded an intolerant bigot. Of course, in order to brand someone a bigot, you have to judge and draw a line so that his actions are not tolerated and he is excluded from humanity.

And, yes, even the forgiving Jesus drew a line between the acceptable and the unacceptable when he told the adulteress to “go and sin no more.”

 

[ladybri77]

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.

I’m not throwing stones at anyone. I sin just as much as the next person, but I try not to live a lifestyle of sin. We are to love the sinner and hate the sin. If we truly love them, we will tell them the Truth so they will not die in their sin. Do you see me saying, “You are gay, let’s stone him/her!” No, I call them out on the behavior.

We are called to stand up for morality. Sin and crime are judged all the time to be right or wrong. How do you think we got our laws? Lawmakers in the past judged certain behaviors to be wrong which were not acceptable and would cause harm or be detrimental to society, so they became illegal.

 

[fix]

From the CCC:

2465 The Old Testament attests that God is the source of all truth. His Word is truth. His Law is truth. His "faithfulness endures to all generations."255 Since God is “true,” the members of his people are called to live in the truth.256

2466 In Jesus Christ, the whole of God’s truth has been made manifest. “Full of grace and truth,” he came as the “light of the world,” he is the Truth.257 "Whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness."258 The disciple of Jesus continues in his word so as to know “the truth [that] will make you free” and that sanctifies.259 To follow Jesus is to live in “the Spirit of truth,” whom the Father sends in his name and who leads "into all the truth."260 To his disciples Jesus teaches the unconditional love of truth: "Let what you say be simply ‘Yes or No.’"261

2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: "It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth."262

2471 Before Pilate, Christ proclaims that he "has come into the world, to bear witness to the truth."266 The Christian is not to "be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord."267 In situations that require witness to the faith, the Christian must profess it without equivocation, after the example of St. Paul before his judges. We must keep "a clear conscience toward God and toward men."268

 

[sedonaman]

…

Lawmakers in the past judged certain behaviors to be wrong which were not acceptable and would cause harm or be detrimental to society, so they became illegal.

And that is why when a person is put on trial, the accusation starts out, "The People of the State of ______ versus John Doe.

 

[Alisa]

I still believe, Fix, that the best way to bear witness to our non-Catholic friends is to live our Catholic faith with love and joy. By our happiness, our faithful practices, and our loving attitude toward ALL human beings from the beginning of time, we will attract others.

I was very impressed by the attitude of complete forgiveness shown by the Amish community when some of their numbers were murdered by a single psychopath a few years ago (I believe it was the Amish, or something similar). They bore witness to the entire country and world by their behavior toward the murderer and his family. To my way of thinking, THERE is an example of loving kindness and forgiveness – they didn’t just “talk the talk,” they also “walked the walk”.

Would I live the lifestyle of my lesbian relative and her partner, including bringing children into the world by insemination? No. But then I am heterosexual so haven’t had to struggle with issues like this, so I have no idea how it actually feels to be gay and yet want to be with a loving partner and nurture children. Easy enough for those of us who haven’t dealt with these difficulties to “admonish” their behavior.

I know people in the forum will now say we don’t have to think or worry, because the Catholic Church already has all things defined for us, and we, and ONLY WE are receptacles of “Truth”. In other words, there is One Truth, we have it, and for that reason it is our responsibility to speak out in judgment and admonishment to all other human beings. Doesn’t sound too Christian to me.

Alisa

 

[sedonaman]

…

I know people in the forum will now say we don’t have to think or worry, because the Catholic Church already has all things defined for us, and we, and ONLY WE are receptacles of “Truth”. In other words, there is One Truth, we have it, and for that reason it is our responsibility to speak out in judgment and admonishment to all other human beings. Doesn’t sound too Christian to me.

Alisa

That’s because you have a “two-color” perception of Catholicism.

 

[fix]

I still believe, Fix, that the best way to bear witness to our non-Catholic friends is to live our Catholic faith with love and joy. By our happiness, our faithful practices, and our loving attitude toward ALL human beings from the beginning of time, we will attract others.

No one is against that. But, love does not embrace sin. We embrace the sinner, but do not leave them there.

I was very impressed by the attitude of complete forgiveness shown by the Amish community when some of their numbers were murdered by a single psychopath a few years ago (I believe it was the Amish, or something similar). They bore witness to the entire country and world by their behavior toward the murderer and his family. To my way of thinking, THERE is an example of loving kindness and forgiveness – they didn’t just “talk the talk,” they also “walked the walk”.

To forgive must mean they first decided the “psychopath” acted unjustly. They judged his actions. They did not embrace his actions or minimize them. Nor, did they pass laws to make such behavior legal.

Would I live the lifestyle of my lesbian relative and her partner, including bringing children into the world by insemination? No. But then I am heterosexual so haven’t had to struggle with issues like this, so I have no idea how it actually feels to be gay and yet want to be with a loving partner and nurture children. Easy enough for those of us who haven’t dealt with these difficulties to “admonish” their behavior.

Do you hold this view for other sins as well? Does DWI get a pass too? What else?

I know people in the forum will now say we don’t have to think or worry, because the Catholic Church already has all things defined for us, and we, and ONLY WE are receptacles of “Truth”.

We can and do think. What we do not want to do is place ourselves above Christ as if we can reason morally better than the Church which has His authority.

In other words, there is One Truth, we have it, and for that reason it is our responsibility to speak out in judgment and admonishment to all other human beings. Doesn’t sound too Christian to me.

We are speaking out against unjust laws and serious attacks against the family. We are not speaking against persons.

 

[edwest2]

You sound like a great human being, Ed. I agree – there are many ways to bring people to Christ. I agree with you about movies and TV. We rarely go to movies these days, and when I accidentally watched part of “2-1/2 Men,” or whatever it’s called, the other day, I could not BELIEVE it. I find the best way to have a show discontinued is not to watch it and to boycott whatever products are sponsoring the show.

Don’t you think things will swing back eventually? They usually do, but hopefully in our lifetime!

Alisa

Yes, I believe when enough people realize how dark and depressing and dysfunctional a lot of what passes for ‘entertainment’ in this country is, they’ll begin to see the light again.

Thank you for your kind words.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

That’s because you have a “two-color” perception of Catholicism.

I guess we can have two systems of faith. One system makes us the center. We get to decide what is right or wrong based on our feelings, pop culture, and rigid individualism.

The other is Christ centered. He founded His Church for the salvation of souls. We can speak the truth in love and accept that at times the truth is like a sword in that it divides.
That not every single person will accept the truth right away does not lead me think we should should stop living and speaking the Truth.

 

[cricket36]

I still believe, Fix, that the best way to bear witness to our non-Catholic friends is to live our Catholic faith with love and joy. By our happiness, our faithful practices, and our loving attitude toward ALL human beings from the beginning of time, we will attract others.

I was very impressed by the attitude of complete forgiveness shown by the Amish community when some of their numbers were murdered by a single psychopath a few years ago (I believe it was the Amish, or something similar). They bore witness to the entire country and world by their behavior toward the murderer and his family. To my way of thinking, THERE is an example of loving kindness and forgiveness – they didn’t just “talk the talk,” they also “walked the walk”.

Would I live the lifestyle of my lesbian relative and her partner, including bringing children into the world by insemination? No. But then I am heterosexual so haven’t had to struggle with issues like this, so I have no idea how it actually feels to be gay and yet want to be with a loving partner and nurture children. Easy enough for those of us who haven’t dealt with these difficulties to “admonish” their behavior.

I know people in the forum will now say we don’t have to think or worry, because the Catholic Church already has all things defined for us, and we, and ONLY WE are receptacles of “Truth”. In other words, there is One Truth, we have it, and for that reason it is our responsibility to speak out in judgment and admonishment to all other human beings. Doesn’t sound too Christian to me.

Alisa

You reflect my own thinking very well. Thank you…

 

[Uncle_Wally]

Marriage is the domicile of the Church. It has always been that way. Marriage is more than a legal contract. It is an affirmation of LIFE itself. Human life is considered sacred. If human life is sacred then the origin of life, the heterosexual union, must also be considered sacred. All human life finds its origin in the creative act of a heterosexual union. No human life finds its origin in the homosexual union. Therefore, only the heterosexual union can be considered sacred.

If the state wants to afford couples legal contracts of civil unions that would afford them governmental benefits, then that is an issue of the state. But that is NOT marriage. That is not a sacrament and that has no relationship to the sacredness of life.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

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?

What is destroying this society is the breakdown in the 90-95 percent of heterosexuals un-parenting their children. The problems in this society are from the breakdown of the typical " are not because two men or women give a child a two parent home. Whether two men or women who represent a very small part of the population want to be married has not and will not erode society. What is eroding our society is the choice by parents to indiscriminately bring children into the world and then let others raise their children ( day care/schools/teachers pastors/churches).

Polygamy is not immoral, just not practiced in our western culture. There are plenty of examples of polygamy in the Bible and at no time was it ever talked about as immoral. David and Solomon had not only wives but mistresses as well. The only time David got in trouble for his sexual exploits (as it were) was when he decided to take the wife of another man and kill him in the process.

There is a profound difference between two consenting adults choosing to enter into a legally binding contract and those who can not consent. You are not making a valid argument against homosexual “marriage” when bringing up these other groups that are tantamount to rape.

I say it again. Because states got involved in sanctioning marriages and endowed legal rights to two people entering a marriage contract, they in essence have caused the problem. Catholics and other Christians are making the problem worse by setting the precedent for discriminatory amendments by a simple majority vote. It doesn’t mean our rights like free speech, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms are gone, but it certainly is more believable that these rights could be re-defined by a vote as well.

The only two plausible solutions are the state gets out of the marriage business altogether and allow marriage to be a religious event, or the states continue issuing such contracts/licenses and allow any two people to enter into a legally binding agreement that offers the same rights and endowments indiscriminately.

To me, my beliefs, faith and my marriage, I could care less if a homosexual couple calls their ceremony marriage. It doesn’t re-define my marriage, does it re-define yours? It shouldn’t, nor should we have such thin skins that we write laws to protect our marriage from THEM. These resources and energy are better spent on our communities and families in need of help.