F
fix
Guest
There is no right to faux marraige. None. Period.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Once you sever reason and morality from these political issues all you have is the force of immorality. The few want to impose their unreasonable view of the family on all of scoiety.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Look, I follow the teachings of the Church. I’ve chosen not to have a partner or get married because I’ve made a commitment to those teachings. However, I also understand that I live in a larger world. Not everyone has chosen to make the commitment I have, and forcing them to live by the teachings of my faith by rule of civil law is wrong. Nobody is forcing me not to live by the teachings of my faith. If I lived in NY or any other state that has legalized gay marriage, there would be no policeman at my door saying that I have to marry another gay person because that’s the law now. And nobody is going to tell you that you can’t think it’s immoral. There are lots of people in NY who think gay marriage is immoral and nobody’s stopping them.
I think porn is immoral,but I don’t feel forced to view it just because it’s legal.
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not defining marriage at all. I’m simply accepting the structure of human beings as normative. If marital intercourse isn’t possible, marriage isn’t possible. Attempting to build a marriage from same sex partners is impossible; it’s like trying to build the Brooklyn Bridge from Lego pieces. The structure will fall.
People will do what they like. But once the structure of marriage is sufficiently undermined, civilization will fall as well. I probably won’t be around to see it, but very likely some of those younger among us will.
F
fix
Guest
It is later than we think.
F
fix
Guest
No, it is wrong to approve of immoral behavior. It is wrong to claim civil society must condone evil behavior. It is wrong to claim the Church is forcing anyone to do anything. It is the “gay” groups that are pushing their religion on us.
They can adopt children. That is wrong. They can indoctrinate their teachings into our children through schools and through law. They can force everyone to accept and approve of their behavior through law.
Porm should be illegal. That it is not illegal is no proof it is just to allow it. In fact, it is the cause of many problems in our culture.
F
fix
Guest
Not unlike Cuomo. Personally opposed but do not want to force others to not murder. No sale.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Bill,
The rapture and Dispensational thought emanate from the Irish Protestant Church conjured up by John Nelson Darby. This entire paradigm rejects the notion of Church as Catholics understand and teach it.
For relevance whatever you believe Christ prevails at the end of time and will come to judge the living and the dead. Whatever happens, whatever is predicted will not change what you choose to do by free will on a daily basis and the ultimate outcome of your life that the Church does not declare to know.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
The “oppression” arising from this issue is entirely manufactured. It makes no sense to claim that homosexual couples are denied marriage, any more than it would make sense to claim that a man is being “oppressed” by being denied the title of “mother.” The nature of the institution is contrary to a same-sex relationship. What is happening is the attempt to re-define marriage so that it thereby becomes something less–simply the formal recognition of any sort of commitment between two people. This ignores the societal reason for recognizing the importance of male-female coupling from the beginning (supporting those who come together create and nurture the next generation).
The Catholic Church’s teaching on how homosexual people should be treated is quite clear that there should be no unjust discrimination or persecution, and I believe that is correct. But the issue of gay marriage does not violate this proscription, for the reasons set forth in the paragraph above.
I do agree that the right to marry should be upheld, provided that marriage is properly understood as the coming together of man and woman. I do not believe that the definition of marriage should be changed and warped in such a way that it becomes unrecognizable. People already have the right to marry. But this begs the question, “What is a marriage.” Traditionally, a same-sex couple could not marry because their coupling was contrary to what a marriage was. If you think the definition should be changed, so that marriage becomes something less than it previously was, then the burden is on you to explain how society (not one couple or one segment of society but all of us) benefit from the change.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
The argument for keeping marriage between one man and one woman does not fall within this category.
In every example you cited, marriage has been as I have said… male and female, coming together and committing to participating in the creation of the next generation. This is the fundamental quality of marriage that has not changed, despite the mysogyny, the polygammy, the abuses that have marred people. What you are saying in essence is that because there have been abuses to marriage in the past, we should stand aside and let this ultimate abuse take place. No, sir. I cannot do that. I will voice my concerns to those who will listen.
That’s not the issue. You and I agree that the Church is committed to the truth. But that does not excuse you and me from the obligation to speak the truth, in charity, to those who will listen. Nor does it excuse us from the obligation to form our consciences and take our understanding of what marriage is, based upon both divinely revealed law and natural law, and apply it in the political arena. Certainly, the gay rights movement has no problem attempting to impose their own definition of marriage on the society in which we all live. I see no reason why we cannot point out how this is wrong on a natural level, and will cause all sorts of problems. To the contrary, if we truly love our neighbors, we should speak the truth out of concern for their wellbeing, whether or not that causes us to be reviled and mocked by some.
Peace,
Robert
S
Seeker1961
Guest
It’s wrong according to the Church. No argument there. It will always be wrong according to the Church. However, that argument is not going to hold water when you are talking about civil law and to people who have no interest whatsoever in committing to the Church.
Gay people want CIVIL marriage. There is zero credible evidence that gay people are asking the Church to change-only to mind their own business and keep their marriage regulations for their churches only.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
You keep saying that Christianity should not be “in charge” when I’m not advocating that position. I’m saying that everyone has the right to vote their conscience, whether it is Catholic, Protestant, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.
You’re still missing the point. Marriage-as an institution-was created not just as a recognition of the committment of two people. And as you noted in a prior post, the notion of romantic love was really not part of marriage in early societies. Rather, the crux of it is the fact that two people willingly commit to an arrangement whereby they become open to the creation and protection of new human life. That is the nature of–the sine qua non–of marriage. “Feelings” between two people are not the foundation of marriage.
BTW, I’m not discounting the fact that same-sex couples can become bonded and have real feelings of love and personal committment towards each other, to the exclusion of all others. But again, that’s not what makes a marriage. Please don’t make this about mean old Catholics trying to keep same-sex couples apart. I am fine with letting gay couples live their lives. What I object to is calling a same-sex relationship a marriage when it is no more a marriage than I am a “mother” of my children. It is NOT because I don’t love them enough. It’s because my nature is male, and not female. Analogously, same sex couples cannot marry and it has nothing to do with their feelings towards each other. It has everything to do with the nature (even setting aside the morality) of their relationship.
Peace,
Robert
S
Seeker1961
Guest
so then it’s the word that bothers you? Gay people can do whatever they want as long as they don’t call it marriage? That word has to be kept for religious purposes only?
If the over 1000 benefits that go with that word “marriage” would transfer to the concept of civil union or partnership, perhaps that would work. However, as it stands now, gay couples who do not have the magic word marriage have to jump through hoops to get the same benefits and privileges you get because your union can use the magic word. Benefits that have nothing to do with children or religion, and that most married couples take for granted.
As I said many times, I’ve made my choice, however I still feel there is a fundamental unfairness to the way gay people are treated in civil society that rubs me the wrong way, even if I have no “dog in the hunt” so to speak.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I’m not talking about sacramental marriage versus civil marriage. I’ve never made that distinction. I’m saying that marriage (whether it is purely civil, or religious, or even sacramental) should remain as it has always been fundamentally understood, consistent with natural law (which is apart from divine revelation). As Catholics, we are called to speak the truth. Whether people will listen or not, is not up to us. And, BTW, this has nothing to do with getting people to commit to what the Church teaches. This has everything to do with getting people to see reason and logic that is organic to who and what we are as human beings.
Don’t you see that if the definition of marriage changes, ALL people living in the state that makes that change (whether it is California, or the United States) will be required to acknowledge the “marriage” of a same-sex couple, which is contrary to what we believe as Catholics, and what many non-Catholic christians also believe, and what many Orthodox Churches believe, and what many Orthodox Jews believe, and what Muslims believe. So, you are wrong to say that a change in civil marriage laws will not impact people of faith. It will challenge us in our day-to-day lives. There are stories of christian business owners being sued (successfully) for declining participation in gay-wedding celebrations. The law now sees these people as unlawfully discriminating if they refuse to offer services to help celebrate what you and I honestly and sincerely beleive to be a lie. So don’t pretent that there will be some artificial wall of separation. There is one society, and one set of civil laws that controls. People of faith will be persecuted for believing what you have readily acknowledged to be the truth. How can you justify the descent into such a situation, where people are forced to accept a lie as truth?
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
In a sense, that’s exactly what I am saying. It’s about dismantling the institution be redefining it. If a gay person (or a gay couple) want to know what the Catholic Church says about their behavior, I will share that with them, but I’m not trying to put up legal barriers to the right to live a “gay lifestyle.” I’m only saying that such a lifestyle is inconsistent with marriage as it has been known and practiced by all societies from the beginning.
That’s not the case in California. Under California’s Dometic Partnership Act, registered partners are accorded all of the rights of a married couple, and the law is to be liberally construed to support such an outcome. it’s easier to register as a domestic partnership than it is to marry in the state, so no barriers there at all. In my state, it’s all about redefining the “word” because the fight is not about benefits and inheritence. It’s about acceptance of a lifestyle choice, through the dismantling of the marital institution.
Seeker1961As I said many times said:
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Can I see some credible evidence for this “persecution”? Oh, and don’t bother with the Ocean Grove case, that’s already been debunked as a religious persecution matter by far better legal minds than those here. (I was studying law in NJ when that case was filed). As for businesses that refuse business to gay people, I wasn’t aware that any of those cases had been adjudicated yet. Filed does not mean won. The few I’ve read about we’re losers, the same services could easily be obtained elsewhere so no damage was done to the couples-publicity achieved which was the whole point anyway.
Gay marriage is already legal in enough places for people to see quite plainly that it hasn’t done any of the horrible things people predicted it would do. Gay couples aren’t marching into St Pat’s demanding that the Archbishop bless their unions, heterosexual marriages haven’t spontaneously combusted…life has simply gone on. It’s simply not a challenge to people’s everyday lives. People who were against it are still against it and always will be and if people don’t like that, well, that’s just too bad isn’t it? Nobody ever promised believers or non-believers a life free of people disagreeing with them.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
These and all the other sentiments in your post are in direct opposition to statements from the USCCB and the Vatican itself on how Catholics, not secularists, are to view both homosexual “unions” in the civic arena as well as (faux) homosexual “marriage.” It is not possible to be in communion with Rome regarding the integrated Catholic doctrine of marriage/sexuality/gender/family and declare verbal or practical support for SS “M.” That is the Church’s perspective on this irresponsible contemporary experiment and the associated scandalous cheerleading, by some Catholics, surrounding it. That is not some random personal judgment by me or anyone else on this forum.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
- Status