Gay "marriage" and politics

[Eris_Discordia]

Give yourself all the credit you deserve. You said you have no control over where your affections lie but you refuse to pursue women under certain circumstances. So many people put their own needs first but you tend to think of the other person. I have a lot of respect for you. I hope things work out well between you and your boyfriend

Thanks! I hope so too, honestly. I’m not big into the marriage thing, but if I had to choose, it would be with the guy I am seeing now. I think it all comes down to respect, and respecting boundaries. I would honestly give my life for my friends, and my boyfriend. Also, just because I like someone doesn’t mean I have any right to make them uncomfortable, or to cheat on my boyfriend, just because they’re of a different sex. Bisexuals get a bad rap because they are seen as promiscuous, when a lot of us are in stable relationships with either gender, and wouldn’t pursue “extra” relationships. I think it’s selfish, and I don’t think bisexuality is an excuse to cheat.

 

[michaeldaniels]

And there marriage isn’t valid outside the state it was done in (unless another state has the same exact law defined…which there are not many)…therefore it is a bogus marriage…

Only because they changed the definition of marriage. That doesn’t make it a real marriage though. For example you cannot consummate a same-sex “marriage”.

Calling a table a chair doesn’t make it a chair.

 

[EasterJoy]

What makes a marriage? Love, honor, respect, and wanting the best for your spouse. I’ve seen these in a lot of relationships, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

No, no, no, no. I hope you’ve seen that in the Church, in extended families, and in monasteries and convents. There is nothing in Church law or teaching that says that people may not live in loving relationships with members of the same sex. There is a lot of that in the Church: it is called vowed religious life. There is lots and lots of love, honor, respect, and wanting the best for the other to be had there! The Church hardly denigrates that by not making it into a sacrament.

“Gay marriage” is an attempt to elevate homosexual acts to being the same as heterosexual acts for the reason that being homosexual doesn’t mean you have totally lost your capacity to care for another human being. Well, of course it doesn’t mean that! The way that people of the same sex can care for each other, and even for children, can be totally admirable. A convent could raise a hundred orphans into the world’s best Catholics, though, and it wouldn’t make the sex that certain pairs of the sisters decided to have in private into a holy thing. That homosexual passions both occur in nature and cannot be relieved by heterosexual sex within marriage does not relieve homosexuals of the requirements of chastity. Heaven forbid that we start defining our morality based on what our fallen natures call us to do!

It is the World that says that “caring for” and “respecting” someone elevates any sexual relationship we might have with them into something admirable. It is the Devil that says that our every passion is normal, natural, and that we will suffer harm if we do not indulge each according to our in-born tendencies. What a trail of misery those lies have caused!

Since I believe what gays want is legal recognition for their bond, I think the civil union is the right approach…

Having said all of this, I have personal friends who are gay. They are involved in the equivalent of a civil union even though it may not be sanctioned as one. I believe they are as committed to their significant other as I am. They should have the same “legal” rights as I have with my spouse.

When the civil union law was proposed for Oregon, some gays fought to exclude couples from it who were not sexual partners. That tells me that gays want legal recognition and societal blessing of their sexual bond, not their personal bond or their desire to put their care for each other on a sound legal footing. Actually, I did not have to guess at it, because some of them said just that. That, I take issue with.

Having said that, I think it very important that laws in favor of marriage not be used to exclude other adults from sharing households and supporting each other financially, since there are certainly morally sound reasons for such an arrangement. When a sexual relationship is not implied by the way the law is written, encouraging unmarried adults in living siutations where they are caring for each other can certainly be in the public good. That some will use the law towards supporting a homosexual relationship is permissible, as long as that is not the intention of the law.

Calling these arrangements “gay marriage”, though, gives such laws the effect of defining legally-binding gay sexual partnerships as being the equivalent to true marriages. That is not acceptable.

 

[OraLabora]

No, no, no, no. I hope you’ve seen that in the Church, in extended families, and in monasteries and convents. There is nothing in Church law or teaching that says that people may not live in loving relationships with members of the same sex. There is a lot of that in the Church: it is called vowed religious life. There is lots and lots of love, honor, respect, and wanting the best for the other to be had there! The Church hardly denigrates that by not making it into a sacrament.

This is an excellent point; we need to get away from the media-fueled notion that “love” equals “having sex with”.

When the civil union law was proposed for Oregon, some gays fought to exclude couples from it who were not sexual partners. That tells me that gays want legal recognition and societal blessing of their sexual bond, not their personal bond or their desire to put their care for each other on a sound legal footing. Actually, I did not have to guess at it, because some of them said just that. That, I take issue with.

Having said that, I think it very important that laws in favor of marriage not be used to exclude other adults from sharing households and supporting each other financially, since there are certainly morally sound reasons for such an arrangement. When a sexual relationship is not implied by the way the law is written, encouraging unmarried adults in living siutations where they are caring for each other can certainly be in the public good. That some will use the law towards supporting a homosexual relationship is permissible, as long as that is not the intention of the law.

Calling these arrangements “gay marriage”, though, gives such laws the effect of defining legally-binding gay sexual partnerships as being the equivalent to true marriages. That is not acceptable.

Another excellent point and I can point to my own family situation as an example of the discriminatory practice of making an illicit sexual union the sole grounds for co-habitation laws.

When I was 12 my father passed away leaving my mother in very difficult financial circumstances. In order to survive we moved in with my spinster aunt (my mother’s older sister). My mother and aunt lived together for 30 years in a co-dependent relationship that was entirely non-sexual, but based on sibling love, support and commitment. As they grew older and increasingly frail, their co-dependency became even more marked. The sad thing was that my aunt, who enjoyed a decent pension from the public service utility that employed her until her retirement, was not able to pass that pension, in part or in whole, to her sister should she die first.

On the other hand a same-sex couple engaged in a sexual relationship were, by law, able to have their partner treated as a spouse for the purpose of inheritance, pension plans and RRSPs (the Canadian equivalent of the 401k). This is clearly unjust.

Unfortunately the government seems to think the only true mark of love and mutual support is having a sexual relationship. This is patently false.

Their living together was certainly for the “public good” as my mother, in frail health and unable to work, never had to draw from state resources other than the pittance of a widow’s pension she received until eligible for her old-age pension. Had she been unable to move in with my aunt, we would have ended up on welfare.

 

[EasterJoy]

Another excellent point and I can point to my own family situation as an example of the discriminatory practice of making an illicit sexual union the sole grounds for co-habitation laws.

When I was 12 my father passed away leaving my mother in very difficult financial circumstances. In order to survive we moved in with my spinster aunt (my mother’s older sister). My mother and aunt lived together for 30 years in a co-dependent relationship that was entirely non-sexual, but based on sibling love, support and commitment. As they grew older and increasingly frail, their co-dependency became even more marked. The sad thing was that my aunt, who enjoyed a decent pension from the public service utility that employed her until her retirement, was not able to pass that pension, in part or in whole, to her sister should she die first.

On the other hand a same-sex couple engaged in a sexual relationship were, by law, able to have their partner treated as a spouse for the purpose of inheritance, pension plans and RRSPs (the Canadian equivalent of the 401k). This is clearly unjust.

Unfortunately the government seems to think the only true mark of love and mutual support is having a sexual relationship. This is patently false.

Their living together was certainly for the “public good” as my mother, in frail health and unable to work, never had to draw from state resources other than the pittance of a widow’s pension she received until eligible for her old-age pension. Had she been unable to move in with my aunt, we would have ended up on welfare.

Yours is precisely the kind of situation that makes it a societal good to make provision for unmarried adults who may not marry each other, but who desire to care for each other financially and be responsible for each other legally. Our Archbishop said he would encourage Catholics in Oregon to support such a law, but not a law that simply sought to make homosexual couples the equivalent of married couples.

Homosexuals in our state, who cry exclusion and discrimination because they are not allowed to make their relationships out to be the equivalent of marriage, will not submit to having their relationship made equivalent to people in the situation of your mother and aunt, who want to enter into a legally-recognized relationship of mutual-caretaking. Obviously, this is all about the sex.

In other words, all of this talk about wanting to support non-traditional families and take care of each other in a mutually respectful and loving relationships that benefit society as a whole is disengenuous. This fight is about enshrining homosexuality as the equivalent–not just the equal, the equivalent!–of heterosexuality, period. Yet they tug heart-strings with their false analogies and people buy this nonsense.

That is no reason to withhold just treatment for gays, but neither is the positive good of just treatment an excuse to confuse such delusions with the truth.

 

[fish90]

Would any law that would make inheritance, proxy rights, and exc. easier for gays be against Catholic teaching and morality? For instance, the example with the mother and aunt would be such a case, however, they were related and homosexuals are not.

Also, can a homosexual person put their assets into a will for a partner?

What is the fine line?

Best,
fish90

 

[hellopeople]

OK, let me ask you guys this…Why do you care if gay marriage is legalized. The Catholic church only recognizes marriages that are done in the church, right? So technically they wouldn’t actually be married anyway, right? Just according to the state…so why do you care?

 

[gardenswithkids]

OK, let me ask you guys this…Why do you care if gay marriage is legalized. The Catholic church only recognizes marriages that are done in the church, right? So technically they wouldn’t actually be married anyway, right? Just according to the state…so why do you care?

That is a really good question and I have several reasons I can give you why we care.

For one reason, many of the laws would be affected. For example, legal annulments are possible is a marriage is not consummated–and the term is specific to male-female reproductive activity. There are many, many, many laws that mention the word “marriage” and they all could be affected if we change the definition of the word.

Another reason, all the state forms and licenses regarding would be affected. Marriage licenses in states that permit this have already have had to change words like “bride” or “wife” and “groom” or “husband” to Party A and Party B or words like that.

The words “husband” and “wife” will also change. And change to what? Will both men in a gay relationship be “husbands” or will one be a “wife”? Will both women be “wives” or will one be a “husband?” Will the words “husband and wife” have any meaning left in them? How about words like mom and dad? Back to current laws, in most states the spouse of the pregnant woman is called the father by law. Changing the meaning of the word “marriage” changes the meaning of a multitude of other words and laws too.

Let’s go back to children. Married couples wishing to adopt may find themselves “competing” with gay couples to adopt. The parents’ age is a factor they often look at in adoption. Heterosexual couples may not realize they are infertile until they are signifcantly older and turn to adoption after years of trying naturally–by that time they might be considered “too old” by some adoption agencies. Homosexual couples know immediately that their sexual relations are infertile, and when they want a child, they know they probably need to adopt.

The Catholic Church has charities involved in adoption. In some states that require gay adoption, that has resulted in the Catholic Church getting out of the charitable adoption business.

Those are just some examples that come to me off the top of my head.

It does affect us.

 

[hellopeople]

That is a really good question and I have several reasons I can give you why we care.

For one reason, many of the laws would be affected. For example, legal annulments are possible is a marriage is not consummated–and the term is specific to male-female reproductive activity. There are many, many, many laws that mention the word “marriage” and they all could be affected if we change the definition of the word.

These laws would transfer just fine if it was two people of the same sex involved in the marriage. Could you give me an example of some law that this would mess up?

Another reason, all the state forms and licenses regarding would be affected. Marriage licenses in states that permit this have already have had to change words like “bride” or “wife” and “groom” or “husband” to Party A and Party B or words like that.

**This is completely inconsequential. What does changing a few terms have to do with anything at all? **

The words “husband” and “wife” will also change. And change to what? Will both men in a gay relationship be “husbands” or will one be a “wife”? Will both women be “wives” or will one be a “husband?” Will the words “husband and wife” have any meaning left in them? How about words like mom and dad? Back to current laws, in most states the spouse of the pregnant woman is called the father by law. Changing the meaning of the word “marriage” changes the meaning of a multitude of other words and laws too.

Why does this matter. I would imagine that it would be two husbands and two wives. As for mom and dad, that would have to be discussed by individual families. A lot of heterosexual families don’t have the parents called mom and dad. As for other things, it barely makes any difference at all. They might have to change some wording around; how is that a big deal?

Let’s go back to children. Married couples wishing to adopt may find themselves “competing” with gay couples to adopt. The parents’ age is a factor they often look at in adoption. Heterosexual couples may not realize they are infertile until they are signifcantly older and turn to adoption after years of trying naturally–by that time they might be considered “too old” by some adoption agencies. Homosexual couples know immediately that their sexual relations are infertile, and when they want a child, they know they probably need to adopt.

Personally I don’t think that heterosexual couples should get priority over homosexual couples when it comes to adoption. Obviously you disagree with that.

The Catholic Church has charities involved in adoption. In some states that require gay adoption, that has resulted in the Catholic Church getting out of the charitable adoption business.

**Well the church should either conform or follow the law. **

Those are just some examples that come to me off the top of my head.

It does affect us.

**My answers in bold **

 

[gardenswithkids]

**My answers in bold **

You replied within my quote and that makes is more difficult for me to quote you. Anyway…your replies seem to have the general theme that it’s okay we can just change the meaning of words like “consummate” “husband” “bride” “father” “mother”. Words matter. Words mean something. We use words to write our laws.

There are *thousands *of laws on the books that use terms like “husband” “father” “wife” “mother”. I can’t give you all of them, (nor do I think it would make much difference to you if I did.) You dismissed that legal annulments would change for heterosexuals. I wasn’t just mentioning that homosexuals can’t consummate their relationships in the way heterosexuals do–I brought up that existing laws for heterosexuals will be re-evaluated in light of homosexual practices. The words used in many of our laws will have different meanings from when the laws were written.

As far as your statement “the church should either conform or follow the law” I don’t even know where to begin with that. Many people misquote the founding fathers crying “separation of church and state” when people of faith express their views on politics. Yet you seem to think it’s okay for you–and even the state–to tell the Catholic Church what to do in matter of our faith and morals.

 

[hellopeople]

You replied within my quote and that makes is more difficult for me to quote you. Anyway…your replies seem to have the general theme that it’s okay we can just change the meaning of words like “consummate” “husband” “bride” “father” “mother”. Words matter. Words mean something. We use words to write our laws.

There are *thousands *of laws on the books that use terms like “husband” “father” “wife” “mother”. I can’t give you all of them, (nor do I think it would make much difference to you if I did.) You dismissed that legal annulments would change for heterosexuals. I wasn’t just mentioning that homosexuals can’t consummate their relationships in the way heterosexuals do–I brought up that existing laws for heterosexuals will be re-evaluated in light of homosexual practices. The words used in many of our laws will have different meanings from when the laws were written.

As far as your statement “the church should either conform or follow the law” I don’t even know where to begin with that. Many people misquote the founding fathers crying “separation of church and state” when people of faith express their views on politics. Yet you seem to think it’s okay for you–and even the state–to tell the Catholic Church what to do in matter of our faith and morals.

The meanings of words change all the time. Yes, we would have to change the words in laws, which seems like a complete non issue. It might cause some extra work for the state, but it cant be too bad considering a few states have already legalized gay marriage (at least I believe they have).

As for the seperation of church and state…the state isn’t telling the church what to do in a matter of faith and morals. It is telling the church what to do in a matter of adoption, which is something that states regulate. If the church can’t conform to the states rules, then they must shut down their adoption programs. It isn’t like there aren’t going to be other agencies that pick up the slack.

 

[gardenswithkids]

The meanings of words change all the time. Yes, we would have to change the words in laws, which seems like a complete non issue. It might cause some extra work for the state, but it cant be too bad considering a few states have already legalized gay marriage (at least I believe they have).

As for the seperation of church and state…the state isn’t telling the church what to do in a matter of faith and morals. It is telling the church what to do in a matter of adoption, which is something that states regulate. If the church can’t conform to the states rules, then they must shut down their adoption programs. It isn’t like there aren’t going to be other agencies that pick up the slack.

If the meaning of words changes all the time…perhaps you’re saying here that you agree 100% with the Catholic Church? Perhaps you’re saying you regret telling Catholics that we shouldn’t be in the business of charitable adoption if we don’t want to place Catholic children in homes run by active homosexuals because we know the environment doesn’t reflect Catholic morals?

Yes, the meaning of words can change over time, but the rapid re-definition of a multitude of words relating to the family will cause chaos in families and our society. I’m so glad that you see things my way.

 

[michaeldaniels]

In Latin they don’t

The meanings of words change all the time.

.

 

[hellopeople]

Great, disregard my argument and focus on the fact that I said the meanings of words change. Changing legal definitions is a non issue.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I disregard your argument, because there is no point in arguing over your invalid point…they are not Catholic, they are secular modernistic, moral relativist arguments…definitely not something befitting a practicing Catholic to make

Great, disregard my argument and focus on the fact that I said the meanings of words change. Changing legal definitions is a non issue.

 

[edwest2]

Would any law that would make inheritance, proxy rights, and exc. easier for gays be against Catholic teaching and morality? For instance, the example with the mother and aunt would be such a case, however, they were related and homosexuals are not.

Also, can a homosexual person put their assets into a will for a partner?

What is the fine line?

Best,
fish90

Isn’t it obvious that if governments can and are already legalizing what are called gay marriages that they can also create irrevocable rights to possessions and property between two gay people? But LGBT groups want marriage, not a different legal arrangement. They are fighting for legal and social equivalence with heterosexual couples.

This is a social engineering experiment.

And isn’t it also obvious that the government is evil and an impediment only went it is against what are called gay rights, but good and necessary when it supports gay rights?

Peace,
Ed

 

[OraLabora]

That is a really good question and I have several reasons I can give you why we care.

For one reason, many of the laws would be affected. For example, legal annulments are possible is a marriage is not consummated–and the term is specific to male-female reproductive activity. There are many, many, many laws that mention the word “marriage” and they all could be affected if we change the definition of the word.

Another reason, all the state forms and licenses regarding would be affected. Marriage licenses in states that permit this have already have had to change words like “bride” or “wife” and “groom” or “husband” to Party A and Party B or words like that.

The words “husband” and “wife” will also change. And change to what? Will both men in a gay relationship be “husbands” or will one be a “wife”? Will both women be “wives” or will one be a “husband?” Will the words “husband and wife” have any meaning left in them? How about words like mom and dad? Back to current laws, in most states the spouse of the pregnant woman is called the father by law. Changing the meaning of the word “marriage” changes the meaning of a multitude of other words and laws too.

Let’s go back to children. Married couples wishing to adopt may find themselves “competing” with gay couples to adopt. The parents’ age is a factor they often look at in adoption. Heterosexual couples may not realize they are infertile until they are signifcantly older and turn to adoption after years of trying naturally–by that time they might be considered “too old” by some adoption agencies. Homosexual couples know immediately that their sexual relations are infertile, and when they want a child, they know they probably need to adopt.

The Catholic Church has charities involved in adoption. In some states that require gay adoption, that has resulted in the Catholic Church getting out of the charitable adoption business.

Those are just some examples that come to me off the top of my head.

It does affect us.

Absolutely. Especially when Catholic agencies that receive government funding are compelled to act against Catholic principles, in the guise of “human rights” (as defined by the State), or lose that funding. We’ve seen that with abortion and with same-sex marriage, we’ll see that applied to Catholic adoption agencies.

The result is forcing the Church between a rock and a hard place: forego funding and risk the agency not being able to stay afloat; withdraw from providing adoption services to uphold principles, and possibly condemn unborn children to death, or sacrifice principle to accept the funding, and risk the laity concluding that the Church is in fact morally relativistic like everyone else, thus significantly contributing to the moral decay of the Church’s membership.

I can’t see that the Church can do anything other than vehemently protest against same-sex marriage.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Great, disregard my argument and focus on the fact that I said the meanings of words change. Changing legal definitions is a non issue.

I didn’t dismiss your arguements–you dismissed mine. Changing legal definitions is entirely the issue. Changing legal definitions affect the laws. Lots of laws. Laws exist to helps our society run smoothly. Changing the definition of marriage will have a ripple affect on a multitude of laws–and you just dismissed that fact, calling it a non-issue.

I also addressed your comment that the Church should get out of the adoption business if we won’t place children with homosexual couples. I don’t know your denominational background, but Catholic teachings aren’t simply something we hold intellectually–our faith teaches us to put our beliefs into actions. We cannot separate our actions from our faith. Placing children in homes run by active homosexuals denies those children either a mother or father and exposes them to an environment that we believe is harmful to their moral character. We can’t do that. Yet some people react to that by telling Catholics to close our adoption agencies if we don’t follow your “values de jour”.