Gay "marriage" and politics

[fish90]

How do you defend not supporting gay “marriage?”

How do you defend against homosexual persons adopting children?

How do you defend the ban of gays in the clergy?

How far can gay “rights” go? Of course they deserve rights, but can a Catholic in good conscience support inheritance rights? What about an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”

Thanks,
fish90

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

How do you defend not supporting gay “marriage?”

Because there is no such thing as a marriage between 2 men or 2 women.

How do you defend against homosexual persons adopting children?

There will be the absence, by design, of either a mother or a father in the arrangement, and the example of the adopting pair is scandalous.

How do you defend the ban of gays in the clergy?

The Curia has published the reasons for the restrictions.

How far can gay “rights” go? Of course they deserve rights, but can a Catholic in good conscience support inheritance rights? What about an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”

In the '80s, the Curia published, for the bishops, pastoral guidelines for homosexual persons. They have the same rights as other people, but not the right to require others to deny either the sinful aspects of behaviours, or the objective disorderedness that attends the condition.

As for inheritance, is it done through a legal will? And DA-DT was flawed irrespective of the issue it addressed, because it required secrecy, deceit, and/or denial.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Because there is no such thing as a marriage between 2 men or 2 women.

In states that allow it, yes it is.

There will be the absence, by design, of either a mother or a father in the arrangement, and the example of the adopting pair is scandalous.

Studies done have shone that being raised by gay parents will not have a detrimental effect. Also, as the child of a single parent, this is kind of offensive. Also, judging by the number of children who need a loving home, why would you deny someone the right to give a child a loving home? There are a lot of orphans in this world, and the foster system is far more detrimental. Also, the only difference between gay and straight parents is that children will face the scrutiny of others, who will mock them, which is more of a problem with intolerance than gay parenting.

The Curia has published the reasons for the restrictions.

The church can do what it wants regarding it’s own.

In the '80s, the Curia published, for the bishops, pastoral guidelines for homosexual persons. They have the same rights as other people, but not the right to require others to deny either the sinful aspects of behaviours, or the objective disorderedness that attends the condition.

As for inheritance, is it done through a legal will? And DA-DT was flawed irrespective of the issue it addressed, because it required secrecy, deceit, and/or denial.

Blessings,

Gerry

This is a matter of church and state. It is unfair to push religious beliefs on others, therefore these laws concerning DADT are unconstitutional, because they are based on religion. As for inheritance, gays are denied rights all the time, because, should the family of the deceased contest it, they can easily overturn the person’s will.

As for sin, you can believe it’s a sin, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are denying people rights based on religion, which is against the first amendment.

 

[gardenswithkids]

There will be the absence, by design, of either a mother or a father in the arrangement, ,

Eris, you make a point that we must acknowledge–many, many children today are raised without both a mother and father. That happens sometimes due to death, but more often than not, it’s because of problems like divorce and sex outside of marriage. We have gotten to the point where we are today discussing gay “marriage” because we somehow forgotten what marriage really is. Many never knew.

When we try to defend Church teachings against homosexuality, we must really acknowledge that heterosexuals have done a bad job of protecting marriage in the past several decades.

As a child who had both a loving mother and a loving father, I find it kind of offensive when people suggest one of my parents (usually my dad) was a sort of un-neccessary luxury. Sure, children can get by without both a mother and a father, but it is not the ideal. As the mother, I can attest that I need my husband to help me raise our family, and he needs me. While we could survive as single parents, our children would dearly miss having both of us. People can get by with only one arm, but we were designed to have both a left and a right arm. Likewise with parents, we were designed to have both a mother and a father.

Sadly, many people do not really know the love of* both* a mother and a father, who are married to each other and living in the same home raising their children together. The people raised by single parents may not even realize that they are missing something important. They may think it is okay to place children who have been entrusted to the state for whatever reason in homes without both a male and female role model (aka mom and dad) for the children because that is how they grew up.

I do not write this to slam single parents or those raised by single parents, but to point out that the sins of heterosexuals against marriage brought us to this point. If we had done a better job over that past forty years of defending marriage from sins by heterosexuals, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[OraLabora]

Eris, you make a point that we must acknowledge–many, many children today are raised without both a mother and father. That happens sometimes due to death, but more often than not, it’s because of problems like divorce and sex outside of marriage. We have gotten to the point where we are today discussing gay “marriage” because we somehow forgotten what marriage really is. Many never knew.

When we try to defend Church teachings against homosexuality, we must really acknowledge that heterosexuals have done a bad job of protecting marriage in the past several decades.

As a child who had both a loving mother and a loving father, I find it kind of offensive when people suggest one of my parents (usually my dad) was a sort of un-neccessary luxury. Sure, children can get by without both a mother and a father, but it is not the ideal. As the mother, I can attest that I need my husband to help me raise our family, and he needs me. While we could survive as single parents, our children would dearly miss having both of us. People can get by with only one arm, but we were designed to have both a left and a right arm. Likewise with parents, we were designed to have both a mother and a father.

Sadly, many people do not really know the love of* both* a mother and a father, who are married to each other and living in the same home raising their children together. The people raised by single parents may not even realize that they are missing something important. They may think it is okay to place children who have been entrusted to the state for whatever reason in homes without both a male and female role model (aka mom and dad) for the children because that is how they grew up.

I do not write this to slam single parents or those raised by single parents, but to point out that the sins of heterosexuals against marriage brought us to this point. If we had done a better job over that past forty years of defending marriage from sins by heterosexuals, we would not be having this discussion.

I lost my father to a massive stroke when I was 12. I can say for a fact that being raised by a single parent, or not having a male role model, was not a walk in the park.

This was because of something unavoidable. I can’t imagine why we’d want to willingly inflict that on a child.

 

[OraLabora]

In states that allow it, yes it is.

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.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Eris, you make a point that we must acknowledge–many, many children today are raised without both a mother and father. That happens sometimes due to death, but more often than not, it’s because of problems like divorce and sex outside of marriage. We have gotten to the point where we are today discussing gay “marriage” because we somehow forgotten what marriage really is. Many never knew.

When we try to defend Church teachings against homosexuality, we must really acknowledge that heterosexuals have done a bad job of protecting marriage in the past several decades.

As a child who had both a loving mother and a loving father, I find it kind of offensive when people suggest one of my parents (usually my dad) was a sort of un-neccessary luxury. Sure, children can get by without both a mother and a father, but it is not the ideal. As the mother, I can attest that I need my husband to help me raise our family, and he needs me. While we could survive as single parents, our children would dearly miss having both of us. People can get by with only one arm, but we were designed to have both a left and a right arm. Likewise with parents, we were designed to have both a mother and a father.

Sadly, many people do not really know the love of* both* a mother and a father, who are married to each other and living in the same home raising their children together. The people raised by single parents may not even realize that they are missing something important. They may think it is okay to place children who have been entrusted to the state for whatever reason in homes without both a male and female role model (aka mom and dad) for the children because that is how they grew up.

I do not write this to slam single parents or those raised by single parents, but to point out that the sins of heterosexuals against marriage brought us to this point. If we had done a better job over that past forty years of defending marriage from sins by heterosexuals, we would not be having this discussion.

I was raised by a single mother due to death. My dad had MS, and passed away at 9. Do I miss my dad? Of course, every day I miss him. My father was bedridden when I was 6, so I never got to learn anything from him about life. Am I trying to devalue people who are married, be they hetero- or homo- sexual? Not at all. However, I still don’t feel like I would feel any different had my mom been gay, or single because of having me out of wedlock. I think that a child in a foster home would want a loving parent or parents, as opposed to being shuffled around from foster home to foster home until they are kicked out onto the streets at 18. Adoption has always had a place in my heart. I am not straight, I am bisexual, and should I be with another person of my gender, I would want to adopt.Actually, I want to adopt no matter what my situation, because I don’t want my own kids.

As far as what I’ve read, homosexuals are just as good of parents, and the only thing children of homosexuals face is discrimination from their peers. I don’t see how homosexual marriage can somehow devalue your marriage. It is simply two people who love each other, and care for each other, and respect each other, the same as in every other marriage, aside from being of the same gender.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

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.

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.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

I lost my father to a massive stroke when I was 12. I can say for a fact that being raised by a single parent, or not having a male role model, was not a walk in the park.

This was because of something unavoidable. I can’t imagine why we’d want to willingly inflict that on a child.

I’m sorry for your loss. I lost my dad at 9 to MS.

:grouphug:

 

[OraLabora]

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.

Love, honor and respect does not require marriage.

Marriage is something peculiar, it happens to include the only biological activity that requires two persons to accomplish… something a same-sex union can never achieve by its very nature.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m sorry for your loss. I lost my dad at 9 to MS.

:grouphug:

Thank you. I still think of him a lot even though this happened 39 years ago.

He was Anglican but agreed to raise me as Catholic so he and my mother could be wed by the Church (but in the rectory, not the church).

He took it seriously and when my mother was ill would take me himself to Mass although he wouldn’t, obviously, take communion.

I learned a lot about commitment to your promises from him.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Thank you. I still think of him a lot even though this happened 39 years ago.

He was Anglican but agreed to raise me as Catholic so he and my mother could be wed by the Church (but in the rectory, not the church).

He took it seriously and when my mother was ill would take me himself to Mass although he wouldn’t, obviously, take communion.

I learned a lot about commitment to your promises from him.

My dad was Catholic, as is my mother. He was extremely ill, and she took care of him every day after work, with only the help of nurses. This is why i have so much of a problem with the church about things like homosexuality, because it coincides a lot with my upbringing. I’ve read somewhere that impotent people can’t marry. I don’t think sex and kids should be the defining factor of marriage. I was conceived the last time my parents were able to have sex. After that, my father was impotent. They obviously didn’t have sex, and yet their marriage was loving and full of self sacrificing love. My father will always be my mother’s soul mate, and they had a sexless marriage for the last 9 or so years of it. I think that love, above all things, for your spouse, and for yourself, are the most important things in a marriage.

*Edit. I also think about my father every day, especially as I get older. There are a lot of things I never got the chance to do and learn from him.

 

[vacanebrake]

I do not know what the right answer is - wish I did. As a biologist and a Catholic I believe marriage is between a male & a female. It maybe semantics and this is where I confuse my self and gets me in a lot of arguments with my friends (straight, gay & lesbian). Marriage has to be heterosexual, but some way has to be found to give the same secular rights to couples in love. I don’t think that one decides to be homosexual, anymore than we decide to be heterosexual.

Peace & all good:juggle::grouphug:

 

[Eris_Discordia]

I do not know what the right answer is - wish I did. As a biologist and a Catholic I believe marriage is between a male & a female. It maybe semantics and this is where I confuse my self and gets me in a lot of arguments with my friends (straight, gay & lesbian). Marriage has to be heterosexual, but some way has to be found to give the same secular rights to couples in love. I don’t think that one decides to be homosexual, anymore than we decide to be heterosexual.

Peace & all good:juggle::grouphug:

Thank you.

 

[addictedkoala]

As long as the government is giving out benefits for marriage then yes, homosexuals should be included in secular marriage, even if I think civil marriage is just glorified cohabitation.

That being said, I hate the government being involved in pretty much anything it shouldn’t be, and marriage is certainly not a legit function of government, so for the reasons listed by others above I am against gay marriage in the Church.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

As long as the government is giving out benefits for marriage then yes, homosexuals should be included in secular marriage, even if I think civil marriage is just glorified cohabitation.

That being said, I hate the government being involved in pretty much anything it shouldn’t be, and marriage is certainly not a legit function of government, so for the reasons listed by others above I am against gay marriage in the Church.

I agree with the separation of Church and state, but conversely, I believe that religion should be kept out of politics.

 

[vacanebrake]

As long as the government is giving out benefits for marriage then yes, homosexuals should be included in secular marriage, even if I think civil marriage is just glorified cohabitation.

That being said, I hate the government being involved in pretty much anything it shouldn’t be, and marriage is certainly not a legit function of government, so for the reasons listed by others above I am against gay marriage in the Church.

It is more than the gov’t giving out benefits (it gives out way to many - another forum topic) - the benefits a spouse/companion receives from insurance, the commitment to each other in property ownership, visiting someone in the hospital, etc. I agree though that no homosexual “marriages” w/in the Church. Could the Church bless a homosexual union under the laws & teachings of the Church? After all Nuns, Friars/brothers & Priests are celibate (more argument).:blackeye:

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

I was raised by a single mother due to death. My dad had MS, and passed away at 9. Do I miss my dad? Of course, every day I miss him. My father was bedridden when I was 6, so I never got to learn anything from him about life. Am I trying to devalue people who are married, be they hetero- or homo- sexual? Not at all. However, I still don’t feel like I would feel any different had my mom been gay, or single because of having me out of wedlock. I think that a child in a foster home would want a loving parent or parents, as opposed to being shuffled around from foster home to foster home until they are kicked out onto the streets at 18. Adoption has always had a place in my heart. I am not straight, I am bisexual, and should I be with another person of my gender, I would want to adopt.Actually, I want to adopt no matter what my situation, because I don’t want my own kids.

As far as what I’ve read, homosexuals are just as good of parents, and the only thing children of homosexuals face is discrimination from their peers. I don’t see how homosexual marriage can somehow devalue your marriage. It is simply two people who love each other, and care for each other, and respect each other, the same as in every other marriage, aside from being of the same gender.

I’m very sorry for your loss.

With all due respect, may I ask why you would consider being with someone of the same sex if you’re bi-sexual? I think it’s easier for bi-sexual people as opposed to homosexuals because bi-sexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. Don’t you think life would be easier for you in every way if you choose someone of the opposite sex rather than the same sex?

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

I lost my father to a massive stroke when I was 12. I can say for a fact that being raised by a single parent, or not having a male role model, was not a walk in the park.

This was because of something unavoidable. I can’t imagine why we’d want to willingly inflict that on a child.

I’m sorry for your loss as well.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

This is a matter of church and state. It is unfair to push religious beliefs on others, therefore these laws concerning DADT are unconstitutional, because they are based on religion. As for inheritance, gays are denied rights all the time, because, should the family of the deceased contest it, they can easily overturn the person’s will.

First of all, this is a strawman. It’s not pushing religious beliefs on others, because it’s not like we’re arresting people for being gay. We’re merely not handing out marriage licenses to gay couples.

However, it begs the question, why is it unfair to push religious beliefs more than any other belief? After all, slavery was faught largely due to religious reasons. You also raise the issue of the constitution. The constitution does not contain the phrase “seperation of church and state”. It says “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, not “shall make no law based on religion”. The founders were concerned about a state church, like what they have in England. Indeed, George Washington said “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the bible”, and John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

It is simply two people who love each other, and care for each other, and respect each other, the same as in every other marriage, aside from being of the same gender.

Two people who love, care for, and respect each other does not make a marriage though. It’s an important part, but it’s not sufficient. For instance, if you are in a marriage, and love, care for, and respect people in addition to your spouse, does that constitute polygamy?

Could the Church bless a homosexual union under the laws & teachings of the Church? After all Nuns, Friars/brothers & Priests are celibate

Then it wouldn’t be a homosexual union, it would be a celibate union. The church should be trying to save people from hell, not encourage them to sin.