Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[St_Francis]

Not in civil marriage.

Until some proposed that marriage between people of the same sex, it was, even civilly.

Remember that this thread is about marriage “outside of the Church”. Your restriction is irrelevant to a discussion of non-Catholic civil marriage.

And that is and what I have been all along talking about.

Civil marriage allows couples to marry with no chance at all of children, for example after a hysterectomy.

rossum

As does the Church.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word impotence, which means an inability to perform the marital act. Since this usually applies to men, I have used it as a shorthand to cover both an inability to consummate on the part of the man and on the part of the woman.

 

[St_Francis]

Except that’s not fully true in the Legal sense, though it may be in the Catholic sense. Children born into a marriage that is later annulled are still legally considered legitimate, and legitimate children require having been born into a marriage. There are also other parts where the legally binding nature of a marriage will still connect the two, depending on what they did while married.

In a marriage annulled because of impotence, where are the children going to come from?

As to the rest of what you wrote: the marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise. Suppose two people, both virgins, marry, and then discover that one is incapable of consummating the marital act. They may decide to see if treatment will help, etc., and then in the meantime, they buy a house together, pay taxes as a married couple, etc.

Because the marriage is considered valid until ruled otherwise, what they do before the annulment is considered valid as well. If the treatment never works, and the couple decide to separate and seek a civil annulment, yes, what they did while married will need to be dealt with.

If the annulment occurs for reasons other than impotence, and there are children involved, the same holds true; however, this was not always the case. Legally, there was a time, and it is still true in other countries, when children of a marriage later declared null would then be considered illegitimate, as indeed they technically were.

Either a marriage which is later annulled has to be considered as valid while it is happening, in which case the actions taken, including having children, must be dealt with as having legitimately occurred during marriage, or it has to be considered invalid, which causes a basic level of uncertainly wrt marriage which should not exist. Societies used to be more inclined to the latter view, which caused problems; now many societies are inclined to the former view, which seems better overall.

However, the fact that society is trying to be more fair should certainly not be considered supportive of a major change in the definition of marriage such as is proposed under SS"M".

The Church teaches that children born of a marriage later canonically annulled are legitimate.

 

[Eugenius]

It’s not a religious issue; it’s a social issue.

The fact is that SS"M" will cause a lot of problems in society because it is redefining marriage. The family is the foundation of society and its future. Marriage is the starting of a family.

…

Why should people who had a big party and got a piece of paper to show they are serious about going steady get a tax break? Get a family discount on their health insurance? Have special legal protections (very few of which are left)?

This is why there is so much confusion about gay marriage. We have muddied the true meaning of marriage and proponents of gay marriage really want what has been “tacked on.” The civil benefits related to marriage, i.e., tax breaks, discounts on health insurance, legal protections, hospital visitation, etc., are recent innovations and really have nothing to do with the religious meaning of holy matrimony. People raised families for centuries without these benefits, yet we pretend that they have always been part of the marriage contract and that extending those same civil benefits to someone else somehow lessens or “changes” the religious meaning. I actually think marriage would regain some of its holy intent in our society if we made it less about material gains and inheritance and more about devotion to God. Many gay couples would want nothing to do with it if that were the case.

 

[buffalo]

Dan Savage is one of the most influential activists bent on redefining marriage. Millions of Americans have seen his TV show on MTV or read his syndicated column. President Obama and his wife Michelle, along with hundreds of celebrities and sports stars have participated in Savage’s “It Gets Better” anti-bullying project.

But there’s another side to Dan Savage that most haven’t seen: the   bully. This April, when speaking to a group of high school students in   Seattle, Savage launched into a tirade against Christians and what he   termed the “bull****”  in the bible.” He went on to call students who   attempted to leave his presentation “pansy-a**es”. Savage has a long   history of obscene anti-Christian comments, and yet he continues to be   celebrated as the face of the gay marriage movement. 

Brian Brown is the President of the National Organization for   Marriage, the leading organization dedicated to protecting marriage as   the union of one man and one woman. When Brown heard about what Savage   had said about Christians and the bible, and what he had said to high   school students who were offended by what he did, Brown issues a   challenge to Savage to have a face-to-face debate about what the bible   really says about gay marriage, which Savage accepted. 

On Wednesday August 15th Brian Brown went to Dan Savage’s house in   Seattle for dinner and a discussion moderated by New York Times reporter   Mark Oppenheimer.

We will post the video of what happened that night soon, so please stay tuned.
http://www.brownvsavage.com/

brownvsavage.com/

 

[edwest2]

Ok so I know I’m going to open a can of worms. So before my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ start slashing my throat allow me to clarify what I mean.

I have absolutely no issues or problems with people of other beliefs, races, backgrounds or lifestyles. I have an open, loving heart towards anyone.

With that being said; Is it wrong of me not to care about same sex marriage outside of the Church? Meaning, if same sex people who are not Catholic want to get married in a secular place(courthouse, beach, etc) or in another religious institution that allows it. Does that make me less of a Catholic? I’m not asking or even looking for same sex marriage in the Church and have no issue with it not being permitted here. I’m talking about the rest of the world around us.

The goal for the entire world should be the truth, and there is no short answer to this question. First, Catholic teaching is based on right reason, the fact that biologically, males and females have sex organs designed for each other and the promotion of a private matter, which was private in the past, to making it a very public matter just recently.

Church teaching:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ask yourself:

1. Why was same-sex marriage put on ballots for the public to vote on? As a friend of mine told me: “Why do they need my permission?” And the fact is it was voted down in every state it was on the ballot.
2. This is not just a Catholic/Christian thing. Our Jewish neighbors have spoken clearly about this:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

It is possible that your child or the child of someone you know, will be forced, by law, to accept homosexual behavior as good in public schools, regardless of what you may personally believe.

rescueyourchild.com/The_Problem.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Eugenius]

Savage has a long history of obscene anti-Christian comments, and yet he continues to be celebrated as the face of the gay marriage movement.

Brown issues a challenge to Savage to have a face-to-face debate about what the bible really says about gay marriage, which Savage accepted.

We will post the video of what happened that night soon, so please stay tuned.
http://www.brownvsavage.com/

brownvsavage.com/

First, I think it is an exaggeration to call someone like Dan Savage the “celebrated face” of the gay marriage movement. He is one of many who comment on it. When this whole school thing came up I talked about it with a range of people and most had never heard of Dan Savage.

Second, I have to laugh when I read about this confrontation between the school and Mr. Savage. I don’t know much about him. The few video clips I’ve seen bored me. I understand he can be rude and exercises his freedom of speech to tell things from his perspective, often for shock value. He could be Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, or any number of other entertainer/commentators. So who in their right mind invited him to that school and then pretended to be surprised when they got what they did??? How dumb can people be? Those are the people who should be accountable for exposing those kids to objectionable behavior. I suppose they are going to take the kids on a field trip to a strip joint next and then get offended when someone takes off their clothes. Come on, use some common sense.

Third, I’ll be interested in hearing what Brown has to say about gay marriage in the Bible since gay marriage is obviously never mentioned in the Bible. Mentioned in church teaching, yes. In the Bible, no.

 

[buffalo]

First, I think it is an exaggeration to call someone like Dan Savage the “celebrated face” of the gay marriage movement. He is one of many who comment on it. When this whole school thing came up I talked about it with a range of people and most had never heard of Dan Savage.

Second, I have to laugh when I read about this confrontation between the school and Mr. Savage. I don’t know much about him. The few video clips I’ve seen bored me. I understand he can be rude and exercises his freedom of speech to tell things from his perspective, often for shock value. He could be Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, or any number of other entertainer/commentators. So who in their right mind invited him to that school and then pretended to be surprised when they got what they did??? How dumb can people be? Those are the people who should be accountable for exposing those kids to objectionable behavior. I suppose they are going to take the kids on a field trip to a strip joint next and then get offended when someone takes off their clothes. Come on, use some common sense.

Third, I’ll be interested in hearing what Brown has to say about gay marriage in the Bible since gay marriage is obviously never mentioned in the Bible. Mentioned in church teaching, yes. In the Bible, no.

The debate is up - here -
brownvsavage.com/

 

[CopticChristian]

Ok so I know I’m going to open a can of worms. So before my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ start slashing my throat allow me to clarify what I mean.

I have absolutely no issues or problems with people of other beliefs, races, backgrounds or lifestyles. I have an open, loving heart towards anyone.

With that being said; Is it wrong of me not to care about same sex marriage outside of the Church? Meaning, if same sex people who are not Catholic want to get married in a secular place(courthouse, beach, etc) or in another religious institution that allows it. Does that make me less of a Catholic? I’m not asking or even looking for same sex marriage in the Church and have no issue with it not being permitted here. I’m talking about the rest of the world around us.

Woman,

If Israel was to be the light of the Nations as the older Brother and demonstrate and guide other nations then the Israel of God is as well and in doing so should care or the light is extinguished.

 

[SgtSchultz]

This is why there is so much confusion about gay marriage. We have muddied the true meaning of marriage and proponents of gay marriage really want what has been “tacked on.” The civil benefits related to marriage, i.e., tax breaks, discounts on health insurance, legal protections, hospital visitation, etc., are recent innovations and really have nothing to do with the religious meaning of holy matrimony. People raised families for centuries without these benefits, yet we pretend that they have always been part of the marriage contract and that extending those same civil benefits to someone else somehow lessens or “changes” the religious meaning. I actually think marriage would regain some of its holy intent in our society if we made it less about material gains and inheritance and more about devotion to God. Many gay couples would want nothing to do with it if that were the case.

I think you make a very good argument Eugenius. What would you, or others, think about a theoretical idea I heard that says the State should have nothing to do with the institution of marriage at all? The State never had any interest in involving itself in marriage until the French Revolution – it was considered something entirely within the realm of religion. What if we returned to that?

 

[CopticChristian]

The debate is up - here -
brownvsavage.com/

Buffalo,

This video proves two things

First, Savage was raised Catholic and uses the Bible as Sola Scriptura…saying The Bible got it wrong on Slavery and the Bible got it wrong on Homosexuality…forgetting that the Catholic upbringing was not Sola Scriptura.

Second, Sola Scriptura is proved to be an enemy of itself because using Scripture alone without any authority we have the following…how does any proponent of Sola Scriptura argue that they got it wrong?

courage.org.uk/default.asp (not to be confused with Courage International);

Using Scripture alone there is spawned Homosexual communities where you can live out your LGBT life in a community with a Bible.

 

[mike52ad]

No matter what laws are passed you can rest assured that there will never be a thing called same sex “marriage”

I do not have any dislike for the GLBT community, but I also am very opposed to have two people of the same sex cohabiting together, sharing the same bed together commiting actions that are sinfuland against God’s law calling what they have as a marriage.

Marriage is and always will be only between a man and a woman as God ordained. If the homosexual community wants to pretend they are married, I am tempted to say; “Have at it.” What harm could that cause? I will tell you what that will cause. It will cause it to appear that living in sin is okay, that God’s law somehow has become outdated. If we as Catholics choose to be silent about this we are not being our brothers keeper because we are allowing them to sin and to continue to live in sin and thus we are making them liable to eternal punishment which is truly a fate worse than death.

We need to get America back on the right track. Our opponents are just loud, they are not as strong as they think. There are 65,000,000 Catholics in America. Lets use our influence for good and to help our wayward brothers and sisters to see the error or their ways.

 

[buffalo]

Gay Marriage Advocates Use Political Intimidation to Stifle Research

Because scientific progress depends so much upon how research is conducted and peer-reviewed, the matter of research integrity should be a concern for everyone. An acquaintance of mine, University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus, has recently found himself in the center of a tornadic controversy over a paper he published last month in the Journal of Social Science Research.
I am not an unbiased observer of this situation. I met Professor Regnerus several years ago at a dinner, and he impressed me as a pleasant, sincere Christian (he is a Catholic convert) whose presence in the field of sociology was a welcome one, because sociologists in general tend to be leery of personal commitments to organized religion. Regnerus is interested in the way sexuality influences and is influenced by social behavior, as evidenced by his earlier Oxford University Press book Forbidden Fruit, an investigation of teenage sexual behavior and attitudes.
But with his latest paper, Regnerus stepped on a political third rail.

more…

 

[CopticChristian]

Gay Marriage Advocates Use Political Intimidation to Stifle Research

Because scientific progress depends so much upon how research is conducted and peer-reviewed, the matter of research integrity should be a concern for everyone. An acquaintance of mine, University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus, has recently found himself in the center of a tornadic controversy over a paper he published last month in the Journal of Social Science Research.
I am not an unbiased observer of this situation. I met Professor Regnerus several years ago at a dinner, and he impressed me as a pleasant, sincere Christian (he is a Catholic convert) whose presence in the field of sociology was a welcome one, because sociologists in general tend to be leery of personal commitments to organized religion. Regnerus is interested in the way sexuality influences and is influenced by social behavior, as evidenced by his earlier Oxford University Press book Forbidden Fruit, an investigation of teenage sexual behavior and attitudes.
But with his latest paper, Regnerus stepped on a political third rail.

more…

Bufallo,

The Regnerus study is discussed in the Brown vs Savage video.

 

[buffalo]

Bufallo,

The Regnerus study is discussed in the Brown vs Savage video.

Yes it is.

 

[interestedman]

True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.

So you wouldn’t mind if Christians of other denominations constantly corrected your erroneous views (at least according to them)?

 

[interestedman]

It’s not a religious issue; it’s a social issue.

We impose our views on others all the time: we tell people who want to murder that that is wrong and we will put them in jail for doing it. Same with other crimes.

The fact is that SS"M" will cause a lot of problems in society because it is redefining marriage. The family is the foundation of society and its future. Marriage is the starting of a family.

If people who are inherently unable to procreate are permitted to “marry” legally, then what does our legal system say about marriage? That it is nothing more than going steady with a big party.

Why should people who had a big party and got a piece of paper to show they are serious about going steady get a tax break? Get a family discount on their health insurance? Have special legal protections (very few of which are left)?

All these have been granted to people who were bearing children and raising them. That made sense. If all they are doing is having sex, then what’s the point?

This is such a one sided view. If these people only wanted to have sex then why would they get married? People get married to show a bond and commitment to each other. Also, not everyone that gets married has kids. Should people that get married and not have kids get their marriage annulled because they didn’t do what you believe is the point of marriage?

Also, gay people can adopt kids and raise them. But maybe some of them do not want to, just like some straight couples don’t want to have children either.

And no, society will not fail if gay marriage is legalized. Gay marriage has been legalized in Canada for years and wow, nothing happened. It is the same in every other country it has been legalized. Please name one country that has legalized gay marriage where society has suddenly fallen apart or where pedophilia has become accepted (I have heard people make that argument, though I doubt you hold that belief).

 

[interestedman]

My mother is a lesbian, and she has instilled more moral values than my heterosexual father has. My father left me when I was young and has told me that he doesn’t care about me. My mother taught me to further my education, to not have premarital sex, and to follow Gods law. I feel that saying that she should not raise me because she is a lesbian is outrageous. I love my mother and always will, and it hurts that she doesn’t have the human right to marry the person she loves.

According to many people on this forum you are likely to have serious issues because of this. And if you don’t have issues now, you will in the future. And you probably will be gay as well.

 

[buffalo]

So you wouldn’t mind if Christians of other denominations constantly corrected your erroneous views (at least according to them)?

Truth is always valid.

 

[interestedman]

The Catholic church does not tolerate luke-warmness. A person either accepts the Church’s infallible teachings on contraception, gay marriage, abortion, pre-marital sex, etc… completely or that person is no longer worthy of recieving holy communion and thereby considering oneself a practicing Catholic.

If all Catholics shared this view most people would have to stop getting communion.

 

[interestedman]

Allowing a person to live in a state of mortal sin without at least trying to help him/her is not being “open minded”, it’s wicked. For example, if you saw a blind person walking off the side of a cliff would you not at least try to reach out and grab that person?

Why don’t you chastise people that were divorced and remarried?