Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Alisa]

This is like when people say I know this or that couple and they are polite people therefore their actions do not matter. Substitute pornographer, abortionist, fornicator, adulterer, bank robber, or anything else and then tell me how you can justify bad behavior based on personal comfort with friends?

Sure, adults can have the child’s interest in their mind, but such sincerity does not prove that is in the child’s best interest. Being sincere does not make one right.

Fix, I’m sorry, but I am offended by your grouping of same-sex couples in the same category as “pornographers, abortionists, fornicators, adulterers, and bank robbers”. That’s why I asked you if you have ever personally known any gay couples who are parents. I hope I won’t get an official reprimand for saying this, but you talk like a person who has read lots of books and encyclicals, not balanced by personal experience and just plain living on this beautiful earth. In other words you do a lot of judging, but it smacks almost of bigotry. I’m sorry to say this.

If I knew how to do it (I’m hopeless at the mechanics of forums) – I would report you to someone higher.

Alisa

 

[edwest2]

Ed, the Fred Phelps types do their damage, even if not all of you are like them. And as I said in my post, I am not in favor of gay marriage. My position – shared by many people – is that the government in a secular state is in no position to bless any couple with marriage.

The state should grant civil unions only, and leave it up to churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples to bless or not to bless those unions as marriages. If this had been the arrangement twenty years ago, I doubt we would now be seeing the land rush by gay activists to garner marriage rights. With conservative Iowa pointing to the future, it’s only a matter of time before one state after another falls before the gay “marriage” juggernaut.

If this were Calvin’s Geneva the state might claim its right to restrict marriage. But it’s not Geneva of 1530. I do wonder what would happen if reasonable people on all sides took a breather, sat down, and really talked to each other, not past each other, about the meaning of love relationships, marriage, and civil unions in a free and secular society. We might actually get somewhere, and avoid all the rancor and bitterness of political campaigns, hate speech, and even personal violence.

StAnastasia

The freedom you are talking about is actually slavery to sin. Who decides when you have sex? The State? You have apparently bought into the lie that each of us cannot control our own sexuality.

A truly reasonable person would look at himself or herself and a truly healthy society and say, I am responsible. Nature itself shows the complementary and procreative aspects of the man and woman. And God declares the gift of marriage, the husband and the wife.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ladybri77]

Fix, children of ANY two parents experience the right of “complementarity”. There is more to “complementarity” than what happens behind the closed door of the parents’ bedroom. Most parents of any sexual orientation complement one another in their parenting style, in the sharing of tasks around the house, in the way they show love and affection to their children.

My older daughter has taught a number of children of same-sex couples, and over the years she has told me they are just as well adjusted, just as loved, with no more psychological problems than any of the other kids – and in fact with fewer problems than children she’s taught who have come from abusive or dysfunctional heterosexual couples.

Good parenting can come from heterosexual couples, gay couples, grandparents, adoptive parents, etc., etc. This is true for bad parenting as well.

Alisa

Yes, good parenting can come from homosexual couples, however, if the message is that homosexuality is okay that they are conveying to their children, then it is wrong and not good for them.

To the other statement, complementarity does exist in the things you mentioned above EXCEPT for being physically male and female, and that is the argment here, isn’t it?

 

[StAnastasia]

The freedom you are talking about is actually slavery to sin. Who decides when you have sex? The State? You have apparently bought into the lie that each of us cannot control our own sexuality. A truly reasonable person would look at himself or herself and a truly healthy society and say, I am responsible. Nature itself shows the complementary and procreative aspects of the man and woman. And God declares the gift of marriage, the husband and the wife.Peace,Ed

Ed, that’s your own definition of “truly reasonable person.” Whether or not you accept it, we live in a pluralistic society, in what is a secular state, not a theocracy. Not everyone will agree with your definition of “truly reasonable person.”

You are also missing my earlier point: we could avoid a lot of rancorous debate about “gay marriage” if the state would simply granted civil unions, leaving the task of marrying up to religious bodies. Give the LGBT community the same state protection and recognition enjoyed by heterosexual couples and I’ll bet many LGBTers would back off from chasing marriage. Keep denying them and the political campaigns will continue in California and elsewhere.

StAnastasia

 

[SHW]

SHW, cherry picking scripture is an easy way to avoid dealing with the complexity of the world we live in, I have to agree with Alisa’s post # 642 on this one. I do agree with you that Jesus hasn’t changed over time but hopefully our understanding of his message continues to grow.

Cherry picking? Why are stating God’s laws considered “cherry picking” by persons such as yourself? Inheriting eternal life depends on our obeying God’s laws and these laws have not changed in 2000 years (or more). And, they will not be changed in the future by the teaching magisterium of the Church either, because “truth” does not and cannot change.

Any attempt to minimize the “truth” is a fool’s folly. Paul warned the Galatians, Corinthians, and Ephesians (and most likely every other church) that if they disobey God’s commandments regarding “sex,” then they will not inherit eternal life. (Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:3-6)

A correct understanding of Jesus’ message is this:

Luke 13:23-27 “Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ 26 then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ 27 But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’”

CINOs do not inherit eternal life unless they repent before death.

 

[fix]

Please list all the parts of your “true” premise and continue with the proof of you conclusion.

Here is a good place to start:

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a* de facto* reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage…

The point is the arguments explaining the truth of human sexuality are dismissed no matter how good they arguments are because those who refuse to accept what is true do not want to here the truth.

The real question is why do these folks not want to accept the truth?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What rights are those? What can a single person or heterosexual couple provide an adopted child that a heterosexual couple denies?

Is that a serious question?? I don’t know about single people, but a heterosexual couple can provide an adopted child with a de facto father and a mother. Is anyone going to argue that a father and a mother isn’t preferable to a child’s mental health than a same sex couple? A heterosexual couple can also offer normalcy, a state of being absent in a homosexual environment. (And please, dispense with the psuedo shock and outrage. I said ‘normalcy’ for a reason and I meant it.)

If anyone wants to suggest that a child raised by a homosexual couple is not conditioned to homosexuality by the environment and, in many cases endangered by the environment, please make a logical argument.

 

[SHW]

I have to wonder- if sexless, godless, childless, loveless marriages are allowed why do we as a society discriminate against a couple because of their sexual orientation? Should we deny an atheist couple the right to marriage? Should we deny a couple who does not want children the right to marriage? Should we deny a couple who marries out of convenience but never consummates the marriage the right to marry? And if we are to use Biblical standards of cleaving to your wife, monogamy and procreation to marriage then why do we as a society allow for divorce and remarriage, not punish adultery and allow birth control?

There is too much variation in doctrine- even Christian doctrine- and our government is not (thankfully) our moral compass. It is discrimination to not allow a couple to enter into a legal marriage contract based on their gender. That can not be disputed and there is not one single argument against legalizing gay marriage that does not involve religion. But if we apply religious doctrine to all our laws, we would have a wholly different governance and society, and who gets to choose that their religous doctrine is the one to live by?

Just some food for thought.

Marriage was defined by God alone. Any other “union” between two persons which does not fit His definition should not be called “marriage.”

Should we also change the definitions of “stealing” and “covet” and “lying” in order to make them seem moral and acceptable?

“Having an affair” sounds so much more pleasant than that ugly word “adultery.”

“Sleeping with” is so much more acceptable to the ears than “fornicating.”

The “gay lifestyle” sounds so much more wonderful than “sodomizing” because after all, they appropriated the word “gay” for their own use.

Now, they are trying to appropriate the “rainbow,” God’s sign of His covenant with Noah, for their exclusive use.

I think every Christian should display the rainbow on “everything” until this nonsense stops.

 

[zookeeper]

Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage…

I honestly never realized how homophobic my Church was. To “modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour”…is the concern here that young people will accept gay people as people deserving of love and not discrimination? That kids like Matthew Shepard or Larry Kingwon’t be beaten and killed just because of their sexual orientation? Or that kids like Carl Walker- Hoover won’t be bullied and scorned to the point of suicide? Or is the concern here that more young people will come out as gay because they can now do so with more acceptance? Even if that were the case- it doesn’t change the fact that they would be gay with out without the acceptance. Or is the concern that the institution will be devalued by people committing lightly, divorcing or remarrying multiple times, & betraying their vows? This is accomplished plenty by heterosexual couples and is not the property of homosexual couples alone.

There just isn’t a single good reason why a gay couple should not be legally recognized as married by the State outside of “homosexuality is a sin”. Even if the Church does not want to recognize it- after all, there are plenty of marriages the Church does not recognize that the State does. Alcoholism is a sin, divorce is a sin, chemical birth control is a sin…but still the State has recognized that individual rights can not be eliminated to serve variant doctrinal beliefs and assertions. We can not create a separate class of people- we can not tell a man that he has one set of rights with a woman and another with a man no more than we can say he has one set of rights with a blonde vs a brunette. This issue has been muddied politically by religious (name removed by moderator)ut from many viewpoints and it really has nothing to do with religion. A church or a person has a right to accept or deny homosexuality on a personal level or on a “corporate” level (as in not performing gay marriages) but the State has no right to direct one person’s morals when their existence does not directly harm another human being.

 

[ladybri77]

I honestly never realized how homophobic my Church was. To “modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour”…is the concern here that young people will accept gay people as people deserving of love and not discrimination? That kids like Matthew Shepard or Larry Kingwon’t be beaten and killed just because of their sexual orientation? Or that kids like Carl Walker- Hoover won’t be bullied and scorned to the point of suicide? Or is the concern here that more young people will come out as gay because they can now do so with more acceptance? Even if that were the case- it doesn’t change the fact that they would be gay with out without the acceptance. Or is the concern that the institution will be devalued by people committing lightly, divorcing or remarrying multiple times, & betraying their vows? This is accomplished plenty by heterosexual couples and is not the property of homosexual couples alone.

There just isn’t a single good reason why a gay couple should not be legally recognized as married by the State outside of “homosexuality is a sin”. Even if the Church does not want to recognize it- after all, there are plenty of marriages the Church does not recognize that the State does. Alcoholism is a sin, divorce is a sin, chemical birth control is a sin…but still the State has recognized that individual rights can not be eliminated to serve variant doctrinal beliefs and assertions. We can not create a separate class of people- we can not tell a man that he has one set of rights with a woman and another with a man no more than we can say he has one set of rights with a blonde vs a brunette. This issue has been muddied politically by religious (name removed by moderator)ut from many viewpoints and it really has nothing to do with religion. A church or a person has a right to accept or deny homosexuality on a personal level or on a “corporate” level (as in not performing gay marriages) but the State has no right to direct one person’s morals when their existence does not directly harm another human being.

So we’re forced into approving of an immoral lifestyle that is now taking over the once heterosexual only marriage in our society and demoralizing it? And we’re not supposed to stand up for immorality? The Catholic church is homophobic?

Don’t you see what this will open the door to? Even more immoral groups coming forward demanding their “rights”. What is to stop them? If you look at it logically, really what is to stop them? I myself don’t want to live in a society that is more immoral than it is now, thank you, and I will stand up and fight against it as it’s what we are called to do as Catholic Christians along with ALL Christians, haven’t you heard?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, that’s your own definition of “truly reasonable person.” Whether or not you accept it, we live in a pluralistic society, in what is a secular state, not a theocracy. Not everyone will agree with your definition of “truly reasonable person.”

You are also missing my earlier point: we could avoid a lot of rancorous debate about “gay marriage” if the state would simply granted civil unions, leaving the task of marrying up to religious bodies. Give the LGBT community the same state protection and recognition enjoyed by heterosexual couples and I’ll bet many LGBTers would back off from chasing marriage. Keep denying them and the political campaigns will continue in California and elsewhere.

StAnastasia

I’m curious where the Word of God or the teachings of the Church figure into this for you. Do they matter? You are obviously in full support of secularism and pluralism. However, the teaching authority of the Church is clear about this and binding on all Catholics.

“Keep denying them…”? Denying them what? Approval to normalize gay sex? Whatever people do in the privacy of their homes is one thing, putting society’s stamp of approval on it and then forcing little kids to read a gay storybook, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from their own parents, is wrong. It is plain, it is obvious. Little kids who are not emotionally or mentally ready will be told that gay families are OK. Do you not get that?

This isn’t just about two adults, this is about the State indoctrinating little kids.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I have to wonder- if sexless, godless, childless, loveless marriages are allowed why do we as a society discriminate against a couple because of their sexual orientation?

CAn we dispense with the agenda buzzwords? There is no discrimination in limiting marriage to oppposite sex couples. Homosexuals are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex who will have them. That they choose not to marry such a person is a decision they freely make. The difference is, they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their decision and so put all their energy into overturning the morals and mores of the society to accomodate their sexual preference. It’s called the tyranny of the minority.

And if we are to use Biblical standards of cleaving to your wife, monogamy and procreation to marriage then why do we as a society allow for divorce and remarriage, not punish adultery and allow birth control?

Because we as a society are no longer influenced by Judeo-Christian moral values. We are now governed by a pervasive moral degradation, led by homosexual activists, whose goal is to remove completely all semblance of sexual morality.

 

[zookeeper]

Is anyone going to argue that a father and a mother isn’t preferable to a child’s mental health than a same sex couple?

Yes - because a person’s gender does not make them a good parent/role model, etc. Oh how sometimes I wish the ability to physically create a life made a person capable of raising a child and building a life. There are plenty of heterosexual parents who are violent, harmful and destructive to children. I would most certainly say that is not preferable just because they are heterosexual. Also going along with your argument, you are then asserting that a single parent is harmful to a child’s mental health status.

A heterosexual couple can also offer normalcy, a state of being absent in a homosexual environment. (And please, dispense with the psuedo shock and outrage. I said ‘normalcy’ for a reason and I meant it.)

What if a child grows up to homosexual? Would their heterosexual parents then be abnormal to them? What is normalcy in parenting or in a home environment? The “nuclear family”? Less than 25% of families in the US fit that description, so that can hardly be considered to be the standard or the majority. Is “normalcy” in your definition inclusive of heterosexually divorced and remarried parents creating 2 blended families? Or how about hetereosexual married parents where one is a closet homosexual- is that still “normal” for you? There is no “normal”. If you are speaking about sexual preference however, I will give you that heterosexual orientation is probably a majority in this country, but it has no bearing on whether a family is “normal”.

If anyone wants to suggest that a child raised by a homosexual couple is not conditioned to homosexuality by the environment and, in many cases endangered by the environment, please make a logical argument.

I find the logical, and research based argument here and here. And the following organizations have adopted policies opposing restrictions on gay/lesbian parenting based on research and committees and I’m sure you can check out all of their websites for the statistics, results of research and polling, and professional opinions.

• American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (1999)
• American Academy of Family Physicians (2002)
• American Academy of Pediatrics (2002)
• American Bar Association (1995, 1999, 2003)
• American Psychiatric Association (1997, 2002)
• American Psychoanalytic Association (2002)
• American Psychological Association (1976, 2004)
• American Medical Association (2004)
• Child Welfare League of America (1988)
• National Association of Social Workers (2002)
• North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998; amend.2002; amend.2005)

 

[zookeeper]

Marriage was defined by God alone. Any other “union” between two persons which does not fit His definition should not be called “marriage.”

Should we also change the definitions of “stealing” and “covet” and “lying” in order to make them seem moral and acceptable?

“Having an affair” sounds so much more pleasant than that ugly word “adultery.”

“Sleeping with” is so much more acceptable to the ears than “fornicating.”

And yet - people can adulterate and fornicate with consenting adults of any sex and it’s not against the law! Yes- marriage is a Biblical institution. But it is also a governmental institution and an institution in religions that don’t recognize or authorize the Bible. Therefor, marriage does not belong to one sect, cult, or religion. Now- maybe what people who are advocating against gay marriage* really* are advocating for is for the government to get out of the business of marriage at all. Then I think they could lay claim to the word marriage and who should or shouldn’t be married, but only then.

 

[zookeeper]

So we’re forced into approving of an immoral lifestyle that is now taking over the once heterosexual only marriage in our society and demoralizing it? And we’re not supposed to stand up for immorality? The Catholic church is homophobic?

Don’t you see what this will open the door to? Even more immoral groups coming forward demanding their “rights”. What is to stop them? If you look at it logically, really what is to stop them? I myself don’t want to live in a society that is more immoral than it is now, thank you, and I will stand up and fight against it as it’s what we are called to do as Catholic Christians along with ALL Christians, haven’t you heard?

No, as a Catholic Christian I am called to love and serve all people. That is what I am called to do. I can dislike a sin, but love and respect a person. Jesus did. Can you?

Nobody is “taking over” marriage and demoralizing our society. We each are responsible for our OWN demoralization. Because- see above- society and government does not dictate my morals or yours. It could be argued that the stance to " stand up and fight" as you said is responsible for the horrific hate crimes that occur. After all, those killers were merely just exercising their right to claim moral superiority and rid our society of those who are demoralizing us. But you are right- it is awful…first the women, then the black people, then the disabled people…everybody wants their rights and if you grant them to one you have to grant them to all. If you’re willing to give up yours, I’m sure they will consider giving up theirs.

 

[edwest2]

A dictatorship of relativism is trying to take over. There is a statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court Building. Money has the words In God We Trust.

To those who say you can’t legislate morality, apparently you can legislate immorality.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, do not be distracted.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Alisa]

No, as a Catholic Christian I am called to love and serve all people. That is what I am called to do. I can dislike a sin, but love and respect a person. Jesus did. Can you?

Nobody is “taking over” marriage and demoralizing our society. We each are responsible for our OWN demoralization. Because- see above- society and government does not dictate my morals or yours. It could be argued that the stance to " stand up and fight" as you said is responsible for the horrific hate crimes that occur. After all, those killers were merely just exercising their right to claim moral superiority and rid our society of those who are demoralizing us. But you are right- it is awful…first the women, then the black people, then the disabled people…everybody wants their rights and if you grant them to one you have to grant them to all. If you’re willing to give up yours, I’m sure they will consider giving up theirs.

Zookeeper, I totally agree with your statements. Whether or not gay marriage is legal, those of us who are heterosexuals can still have heterosexual marriages as usual.

Somebody ventured an idea awhile ago that perhaps the word “marriage” should be reserved for people married by clergymen. A mistake was made someplace along the line when the boundaries between church and state were “fuzzied”. Yes, our coinage says “In God we trust,” but it doesn’t make any difference to me personally if those words are on the coins or not – my faith is a part of my personal life and my responsibilities to do God’s will as well as I can. (But this is a topic for another thread!).

Alisa

 

[ladybri77]

No, as a Catholic Christian I am called to love and serve all people. That is what I am called to do. I can dislike a sin, but love and respect a person. Jesus did. Can you?

Nobody is “taking over” marriage and demoralizing our society. We each are responsible for our OWN demoralization. Because- see above- society and government does not dictate my morals or yours. It could be argued that the stance to " stand up and fight" as you said is responsible for the horrific hate crimes that occur. After all, those killers were merely just exercising their right to claim moral superiority and rid our society of those who are demoralizing us. But you are right- it is awful…first the women, then the black people, then the disabled people…everybody wants their rights and if you grant them to one you have to grant them to all. If you’re willing to give up yours, I’m sure they will consider giving up theirs.

Welll, if you’ve read any of my other posts in the past, I said we need to love the homosexual, not the sin, and this is what we are called to do as Christians. I just call evil, evil and good, good. As it is stated in Isaiah, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil”. I’ve also reiterated in my other posts why it is loving to share the Gospel with people and let them know what will get them into heaven or not. I think someone outlined these scriptures in the above posts.

Come now, I think you’re going a little overboard with the disabeled, the women, etc. You know what is true in your heart, and THAT’s what I’m talking about - sexual sin and moralizing it and what repercussions that will have on us as a society and our children. Incest is being legalized in Europe. Would you like to have that and other deviant sexualbehavior all of sudden legalized and allowable for marriage?

Someone was saying something about marriage and Christian values or being separate or something. Why complain? Marriage was first instituted by God and brought forth by Judeo-Christian values, so why wouldn’t we defend it as that was it’s original intent??

 

[Alisa]

Someone was saying something about marriage and Christian values or being separate or something. Why complain? Marriage was first instituted by God and brought forth by Judeo-Christian values, so why wouldn’t we defend it as that was it’s original intent??

In my opinion, marriage is both a religious and a legal institution. If we as Catholics (along with other Christians) believe that only marriage between a man and a woman is moral, we can’t necessarily expect or count on people of other persuasions to back us up. That is their decision.

I’ve used this example before, but what if Islamic people insisted it is only “moral” for women to be appropriately veiled? Or if Orthodox Jewish people insisted on only Kosher food in our supermarkets? What if they wanted their private and specific religious beliefs sanctioned or not sanctioned legally?

I know some of you will now say: "That’s different, because we have “THE TRUTH”. We may believe there is one objective Truth and that we are the only human beings who know what that “Truth” is. That’s our right. But speaking as citizens of the United States of America, it doesn’t work that way. We need to be so secure in our own faith that we don’t need 100% of other Americans to believe in exactly as we do.

Alisa

 

[Riley259]

Aside from any religious argument, aside from any emotional argument, it is the natural facts which provide the clearest and strongest argument that valid marriage is between one man and one woman as that is how children are conceived and it is how they are best raised. Marriage is a universally recognized relationship which has existed throughout human history in every culture and as a part of every religion, and whose purpose has always been and continues to be to provide a stable, nurturing environment in which to raise children. Prior to the development of technologies which enabled the child to be conceived outside of the womb there was little confusion on what constituted a valid marriage, since all cultures recognized the fact that it required the union of man and woman to conceive a child. Therefore, marriage was universally recognized as rightfully taking place between men and women since no homosexual union however loving or caring was ever capable of producing children.

The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuals cannot have a valid marriage because their union is not capable of generating children. A man having relations with another man will not suddenly generate children. The instance of a pregnant “man” so touted on CNN was not, in fact, a man at all but a woman who had surgeries to change her appearance but had not completed those surgeries and so she still had a female reproductive system. A lesbian woman who chooses to be artificially inseminated still owes her motherhood to the contribution of a man, and not to her chosen partner. These are facts which are indisputable and cannot be ignored simply because the facts prove inconvenient to the way one might desire things to be.

The introduction of artificial technology allowing children to be conceived outside of the womb has created a tremendous amount of confusion in the minds of people. What was once obvious is no longer obvious, but it still holds true: all children are conceived through the union of one man to one woman. Even if human cloning should someday be permitted, further obscuring the facts, that clone is still ultimately the result of the pairing of one woman with one man.

Very well said. I’m astounded at the amount of people in our society who ignore the obvious.