Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjdrury81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zookeeper said:
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. 😉
Click to expand...
How soon we forget. Adultery and fornication used to be against the law in many countries. What changed this? Sodomy used to be against the law, too, in the USA until “Lawrence vs. Texas.”

What changed is that now too many people have been “enlightened” in such a way so that they now think that the deviant behaviors once prohibited by Scripture, need to become “rights” which we all must endorse and protect. If we do not, then we are to be stigmatized as “phobes” and deserving of fines and jail time for our unpolitically correct “deviant” beliefs. :rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see on Judgment Day how God judges those persons who usurped His definition of marriage for their own ungodly agendas.
 
edwest2 said:
“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
Click to expand...
Ed, I didn’t mention anything about the State indoctrinating little kids – that’s your issue, not mine. All I said is that the social support for gay marriage will continue to accelerate as long as civil unions don’t carry the same weight as marriage. If you want to preserve marriage for heterosexuals, then get the state out of marriage!

StAnastasia
 
SHW said:
How soon we forget. Adultery and fornication used to be against the law in many countries. What changed this? Sodomy used to be against the law, too, in the USA until "Lawrence vs. Texas…

And yet the barbaric sport of boxing is sanctioned by the Church. It’s acceptable to pay to watch some beat the **** out of someone else on Friday night, but it’s not acceptable for one person to love another. Go figure!
Click to expand...
 
StAnastasia said:
Ed, I didn’t mention anything about the State indoctrinating little kids – that’s your issue, not mine. All I said is that the social support for gay marriage will continue to accelerate as long as civil unions don’t carry the same weight as marriage. If you want to preserve marriage for heterosexuals, then get the state out of marriage!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Does Catholic teaching about this subject matter to you at all?

Peace,
Ed
 
ladybri77 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Oh Ladybri, so many of the things we worry about never happen. I am old enough to remember when Kennedy was elected President, though not old enough then to vote for him. I remember that the Protestants in Seattle were afraid the Pope would take over the United States and would probably have tanks stored in St. James Cathedral. During the Khruschev (sp?) era, people couldn’t sleep nights worrying that he was going to blow up the United States.

Nobody is going to force you to engage in a homosexual marriage. Be celibate or have a heterosexual marriage; nobody is stopping you, nor will stop you!

Alisa
 
Alisa said:
Oh Ladybri, so many of the things we worry about never happen. I am old enough to remember when Kennedy was elected President, though not old enough then to vote for him. I remember that the Protestants in Seattle were afraid the Pope would take over the United States and would probably have tanks stored in St. James Cathedral. During the Khruschev (sp?) era, people couldn’t sleep nights worrying that he was going to blow up the United States.

Nobody is going to force you to engage in a homosexual marriage. Be celibate or have a heterosexual marriage; nobody is stopping you, nor will stop you!

Alisa
Click to expand...
That is not the proper way to view this. Gays want to force what they call marriage on a society that in its history has never practiced gay marriage.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Does Catholic teaching about this subject matter to you at all?

Edwest, Catholic teaching isn’t the issue here. Most of us believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and are doing our best to live them and teach our children and grandchildren to live them.

The problem is the muddle because church and state are intermingling in a fuzzy enough way that people are confused.

If we believe the Catholic position that heterosexual marriage is the way to go, then that is the way we should go. We can cast our vote, demonstrate publicly if that is our style – but we shouldn’t expect the government to take our side if the swing of votes goes the other way.

Alisa
Click to expand...
 
edwest2 said:
That is not the proper way to view this. Gays want to force what they call marriage on a society that in its history has never practiced gay marriage.

Well, as a matter of fact I agree with you to a point. Neither gays nor Catholics should assume the government of the United States of America will go out of its way to support them if a majority supports the other way of thinking. That’s why this is such a mess.

All each of us can do is vote (if it comes to that either at the state or national level). But if the vote goes against our particular way of thinking, it really shouldn’t change our own lives.

Alisa
Click to expand...
 
edwest2 said:
That is not the proper way to view this. Gays want to force what they call marriage on a society that in its history has never practiced gay marriage.Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I agree. We might have avoided the whole “gay marriage” thing had the state gotten out of the marriage business and left that up to the churches.
 
A lot has been said in 53 pages, too much to read and pick out a point or two. So, at the risk of repeating prior points, but with the possible advantage of keeping them ‘fresh’ - -
  1. If we consider ourselves Christian, especially Catholic, who try to do our best to conform our lives to God’s Will for us then we must read and consider carefully Genesis 2, Mark 10, Matthew 19, Ephesians 5 and the 4th Commandment as we try to understand the proper use of the term ‘marriage.’
  2. As Christians, especially Catholic, we are to love one another. Empathy, support, and compassion are Christian values that express, in part, our love for others. But there are limits. God loved Adam and Eve and gave them all they needed and asked for restraint on one thing. They were loved, not in want, but they ignored God’s Commandment and gave into temptation and lost it. I wonder what would have happened if Adam, seeing the wrong, would have said it is wrong, can’t do it? But he just went along. I don’t know the full result, but their life was harder. I like to think that they were sorry and God forgave them and they are in Heaven now. But the point is, LOVE does not require us to let the loved one do whatever. There are limits.
(I am sure that all of us have let loved ones do or continue to do wrong because we loved them. Or that we refused to help them and thereby allowed them to do more wrong. It is tough to be a loving hard a - -.)
  1. The limit for “marriage” is found in 1 above. When faced with a conflict between two “goods” where only one can be the correct answer, I believe that we have to stay within the limits of 1 above. I am not aware of anything in God’s Plan that overrides the criteria in 1 above.
  2. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loose his soul?
  3. I beleive that Christians, including Catholics, are obligated, to speak the Truth in the Spirit of Love. Part of that speech is defending the time honored definiton of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Any other union requires a different title. We need to keep our priorities straight. There are limits.
 
GratefulFred said:
as we try to understand the proper use of the term ‘marriage.’

Part of that speech is defending the time honored definiton of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Any other union requires a different title.
Click to expand...
I’m sure a part of the problem here is usage of the term “marriage”. Maybe it would help everybody concerned if we would change our terminology.
 
zookeeper said:
I honestly never realized how homophobic my Church was.
Click to expand...
By homophobic do you mean speaking the truth? Language is so misused in, an attempt to change reality, I never know exactly what people mean anymore. I mean marriage now means disordered relations, correction of error is termed hate, and the Church speaking on matters of morals is termed phobic.
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.
Click to expand...
It means young people, like many elders, will have deformed consciences and be unable to morally reason correctly.
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.
Click to expand...
There is no right to act immorally.
 
Alisa said:
I’m sure a part of the problem here is usage of the term “marriage”. Maybe it would help everybody concerned if we would change our terminology.
Click to expand...
Renaming some act or idea does not magically change its nature.
 
StAnastasia said:
I agree. We might have avoided the whole “gay marriage” thing had the state gotten out of the marriage business and left that up to the churches.
Click to expand...
“we”? Who is we? The radical gay agenda was not started by a we. The state has nothing to do with this in so far as the subject at hand. This entire society needs to examine this issue for what it is.

Peace,
Ed
 
they can do it just dont call it marriage call it a lifetime partnership or something a unity consignment ceremony just give them legal rights and who cares god will love their unity too
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top