- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
What some people want and what has been true and enshrined for thousands of years does not suddenly allow for alternative lifestyles. Gay sex will not be called marriage because it is against biology, whether you believe in God or not.
Peace,
Ed
F
fix
Guest
Right reason
People murder, rob banks, cheat , lie, and much else. Those are deviations from the natural law. The law still exists even though some reject it.
S
St_Francis
Guest
What would some secular reasons for not continuing on this path towards permitting members of the same sex to “marry”?
Children are the future of any society. The ideal situation in which children should be born and raised is 2 parents obviously of the opposite sex in a permanent union. Anything other than this is a less-than-ideal situation.
Some less-than-ideal situations occur as the result of events beyond our control such as death. We cannot limit death or serious illness, but society should discourage any setting-up of less-than-ideal circumstances such as children born to those who are too young, who are unmarried, etc. This is not to say that society should *forbid *that, simply discourage it *for the sake of its own future. *
There are also ways in which the society acknowledges the service being done by parents: various benefits accorded to families. One example in the US would be tax benefits for businesses which provide health insurance for families.
These benefits exist not because two people love each other, but because they have publicly committed to a relationship of the type which benefits society. before the acceptance of artificial birth control, this was all very clear, but with abc, no-fault divorce, and the like, we ourselves have eroded the concept of marriage to something like going steady with a great big party. People marry with no thought of having children, for example; people divorce with no thought of what they do to their children.
A “marriage” between two people of the same sex *cannot *by its nature bring children into being. From even a secular society’s point of view, there is no reason to promote or permit it because SS"M" does not contribute to the future of the society the way that opposite-sex marriage ideally would.
In the US, all too often we see the building block of society as the individual. But just as individual letters do not make for communication until they are put together in a way which makes words, so individuals do not create society until they are put together in the *true *building block of society: the family.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
As I have stated in previous posts, I don’t think the state should have anything to do with marriage at all, under any circumstances, be that between a man and woman who are Catholic, a man and woman of any other religion and/or no religious beliefs, so don’t think it’s their palce to have anything to do with marriage at all.
I think it should be between a man and woman, their church, and God. I don’t think the state should have any place, any role, at all.
God Bless,
Bill
I think it should be between a man and woman, their church, and God. I don’t think the state should have any place, any role, at all.
God Bless,
Bill
F
fix
Guest
I am always saddened when I read that Catholics think the state should not be involved in marriage. The State is not some arbitrary organization that has no influence over our lives. The State has a special role and part of that role is to protect marriage and the family. That the State can misuse their authority does not mean the State should cease to be involved.
A huge part of the problem is that Catholics do not think and act like Catholics. If voters, judges, politicians, parents. etc lived their faith we would have a much greater influence within the culture.
J
JimG
Guest
This is quite correct. The Catholic Church did not invent marriage. God invented marriage. Marriage pre-dates all religions, but exists as the natural state of human organization.
Things like murder, theft, and offenses against marriage are opposed to the natural law because they work against the interest of human society and human civilization.
The state of marriage varies during various periods of history. But when marriage reaches a critical stage of decline, when family structure deteriorates from a stable domestic family structure into an atomized family non-structure, as it has been doing for a long time now, the underpinnings of civilization are weakened; they begin to crumble. When family structure crumbles, so does civilization.
That may sound like hyperbole to those who’s only thought is to do as one pleases. But doing as one pleases, always and in all things, leads to chaos and collapse, not to stability.
Carle Zimmerman studied the history of family structure way back in the 1940’s. His magnum opus “Family and Civilization” reveals that family structure rarely reaches the collapsing point, but when it does, the surrounding civilization has reached its endpoint. He identifies only three periods in history when this took place, the last period being the one in which we now live.
Gay marriage is not the solitary cause of the undermining of family structure, but it is the most recent and the most blatant. Homosexual marriages cannot even be consummated, and thus, can never be marriage, even from a wholly natural standpoint.
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/CltWr/TraditFmly.htm
B
Bill_7154
Guest
prescriptions regarding murder are not catholic doctrines? Maybe not, but it’s one of the 10 commandments, is it not? Do we know the year that God handed down to Moses the 10 commandments?
JimG,
regarding this statement of yours: God invented marriage. Marriage pre-dates all religions, but exists as the natural state of human organization.
Could you expand upon this if possible? Did God speak of marriage during the time of Adam and Eve? If not, what would you say would be one of the first examples of God inventing or recongizing marriage, either formally or informally? Is it addressed in the Old Testament? Don’t mean to pu you on the spot if your not sure, just trying to learn for my own knowledge as I see marriage as something between a man and woman and God primarially, and connected to the church secondarially.
And as I stated in a previous post, I don’t think it’s any of the state’s business (but also recongize that many, if not most, or almost everyone else does) I have no quarrel with that. It’s just to me, it’s more presious when thought of as a covenant between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.
Thanks and God Bless,
Bill
JimG,
regarding this statement of yours: God invented marriage. Marriage pre-dates all religions, but exists as the natural state of human organization.
Could you expand upon this if possible? Did God speak of marriage during the time of Adam and Eve? If not, what would you say would be one of the first examples of God inventing or recongizing marriage, either formally or informally? Is it addressed in the Old Testament? Don’t mean to pu you on the spot if your not sure, just trying to learn for my own knowledge as I see marriage as something between a man and woman and God primarially, and connected to the church secondarially.
And as I stated in a previous post, I don’t think it’s any of the state’s business (but also recongize that many, if not most, or almost everyone else does) I have no quarrel with that. It’s just to me, it’s more presious when thought of as a covenant between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.
Thanks and God Bless,
Bill
S
Slavonic
Guest
Heterosexual sex is not called marriage either.
What direct harm is done solely to another person as in the cases or rape, robbery or murder does the coupling of two members of the same sex cause? In the cases of lying and cheating, where such acts may not necessarily have a criminal component but can indeed cause harm to society, what immediate benefit will society see by the absence of same-sex coupling, which does exist in society today, with or without legal marriage contracts?
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
True. And the State puts legal limits (age, consanguinity, number etc.) on the kind and amount of people who can legally enter into the state of marriage, based upon moral underpinnings that have been consistent for thousands of years. While others (race, nationality) have been attempted, these are sporadic and arbitrary. Gender complimentarity falls under the former category. It is not arbitrary–although the 9th Circuit disagrees.
Yes. This is the consistent teaching of the Church, from Scripture and Tradition, for more than 2,000 years.
This is the crux of the issue. Clearly, the State has the power to re-define marriage to make it into whatever the Legislature says it is. But, as Catholics, I believe we are called to speak the truth on the issue, to inform the state that redefining marriage to include some other relationships (polygamy, same-sex, regardless of the moral issue), is contrary to both revealed religion and natural law. The danger in opposing the cause celebre of “gay marriage” is that by doing so, one is immediately labelled as homophobic, or hate-filled. The message needs to come across better. No Catholic should be saying that people who choose to live a gay lifestyle should be persecuted, or limited in pursuing their rights. Nor are Catholics saying that same-sex people cannot recognize committed relationships. The problem comes when the gay community wants to call that relationship a marriage, when in fact it can never be a marriage. This is not denying a “right” nor should it be insulting to a same-sex couple, any more than it would be a denial of right, or insulting, to say to a man that no matter how much he loves his child he will never be a mother. The gay community (sincerely or not), perceives the traditional view of marriage as unfair, because marriage is a “stamp of approval” by society of a sexual union. The problem is that marriage is MORE than just that. It seems to me that there are other ways to obtain societal approval short of redefining the institution so that it becomes disconnected to the generation of children – a primary purpose.
For the simple reason that it presents a falsehood. It is a fundamental difference between recognizing a same sex couple as “married” and recognizing a formerly sacramentally married couple as “no longer married.” The latter may be incorrect, but it is not a violation of the natural law, nor is it inconsistent with the historical tradition of marriage outside of the Catholic Church. It certainly is consistent with modern western culture, whereas gay marriage is a fad.
But it is inconsistent with that teaching to agree to a definition that by nature violates your Catholic faith. I think your heart is very compassionate, but it is not loving, or compassionate to tell someone that a lie is the truth. And we agree, as Catholics, that the term “gay-marriage” is a non-sequitur that can never be consistent with natural law, which all people can come to understand whether they are Catholic or not–through reason.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
What do you think Paul would have said to the Church if the right to vote existed in the ancient world as it does today, and there was an upcoming vote to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. My guess is that he would say something like, “Vote your conscience people. But let your conscience be informed by Christ and His Church; Jesus taught that marriage occurrs when a man and a woman come together, and the two become one.”This is all true…for Catholics. However, not everyone has committed to the Catholic faith and therefore cannot be expected to follow Catholic teaching. Remember, even Paul wrote letters to Churches about how they must live, not to the government about laws they must enact.
Keep in mind that it is not the Church that started this fight over the definition of marriage. Until a few years ago, the institution of marriage was understood universally as between male and female - because it was oriented not simply towards companionship, but towards the procreation and rearing of children.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Natural law does not say that people MUST get married. Natural law refers to the ability to understand something as being true, based upon what we can learn from reason, apart from divine revelation. All people know that murder is wrong - even those who don’t accept the Ten Commandments as divine. All people know that rape is wrong. All people know that parents have a responsibility to provide for their offspring. We know this through reason. And until the term became politically charged by its tying to the issue of societal acceptance of the “gay lifestyle” the term marriage was understood as an institution that was oriented toward both procreation and mutal support, requiring gender compatibility.
Peace,
Robert
J
JimG
Guest
When I say that God invented marriage, I mean that he invented it in the process of creating man and woman as complementary sexes who would form the basis of human families. Human families would in turn form the basis of human civilization. One can get an idea of this by reading the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, (to which Jesus made reference when he condemned divorce.)
I could expand upon it some more, but I’m tired and old. It would be better to read the Carle Zimmerman book. I don’t mean to suggest that the domestic family type was universal everywhere at all times. It was not. Family structure in tribal societies tended to be patriarchal and often polygamous. That’s still the case in some tribal societies. (And those family structures are still more stable than the modern atomized family.) Domestic family structures (or as we might refer to them, nuclear families,) were encouraged by the Church and relied on monogamy, fidelity, and permanence. Civilizations with a primarily domestic family structure could last a long time.
But as family structures break apart and break down, divorce, serial monogamy, cohabitation, casual fornication, homosexual couplings and other types of individualized types of relationships become increasingly common; monogamy, permanence and fidelity become less common. Atomization of the family undermines the societal structure. That is happening now.
The business of the state is the common good, and marriage serves the common good, so it must be the business of the state. When the state abandons marriage to atomization, society crumbles. That’s happening now as well.
I hate to be a cynic, but it’s almost not worth arguing about, because I think that Carle Zimmerman was right. Marriage is already in an advanced state of decline and may not be able to be salvaged. If it cannot be, then neither can our civilization.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
It’s interesting that when reading the first paragraph above I was going to make a comment similar to the second paragraph. If it’s the business of the state, and it’s crumbling, this is just one of the very many examples of the state doing a terrible job while charging us a tidy sum for the priveledge for doing a terrible job for us.
I prefer to pay money to get good services and goods, not terrible ones. This is yet another exaple of failure by government. Seems they (examples of the state doing a terrible job at something while charging us an arm and a leg for doing said job) keep popping up everwhere, at least IMO.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, because the state has lost its bearings. It seems to think that its purpose is to keep everyone contented rather than to provide for the common good. Parents must understand the difference between making people happy and providing for the common good!
E
edwest2
Guest
I’m not going to listen to anyone talking gloom and doom. Are we Catholics? Do we believe in the power of God? We had better, because no one, no Zimmerman or Smith or Jones, strengthens us. It is God through prayer. And God who gives hope.
I watched the entire attack on the family as it happened. Now a bunch of zombie people are walking around who are not being controlled by their brains but by their sex organs. How dare they call themselves civilized when they no longer have any desire to think that - wait a minute - I can say no to my sexual urges. I decide. You decide. And you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that. Stop listening to the world.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Here’s the real issue:
Gays don’t want civil unions or domestic partnerships, but they’ll take what they can get – for now. The goal is turning gay sex into marriage. And all I’m seeing is a benefits package attached and zero responsibilities. Many couples in gay marriages don’t believe in fidelity.
Wake up people. The goal is obvious. Don’t be fooled. And keep your private sex life private. Otherwise, talk to a medical professional when you have a problem.
To my fellow Catholics, gay marriage is going back on the ballot in a few states. And the correct question is: Why does anybody need my permission to live how they want? They don’t.
Peace,
Ed
Gays don’t want civil unions or domestic partnerships, but they’ll take what they can get – for now. The goal is turning gay sex into marriage. And all I’m seeing is a benefits package attached and zero responsibilities. Many couples in gay marriages don’t believe in fidelity.
Wake up people. The goal is obvious. Don’t be fooled. And keep your private sex life private. Otherwise, talk to a medical professional when you have a problem.
To my fellow Catholics, gay marriage is going back on the ballot in a few states. And the correct question is: Why does anybody need my permission to live how they want? They don’t.
Peace,
Ed
J
JimG
Guest
Well yes, the Church will endure. But as you say, you watched the entire attack on the family as it happened----and it has been largely successful, beginning with the promotion and acceptance of contraception, continuing with the sexual revolution, divorce, cohabitation, disregard for marriage. A lot of people like it that way. They consider it sexual freedom.
Can the entirety of a decadent and collapsing civilization be turned around? No doubt it can, but probably not within a few years, unless the second coming intervenes! Roman society fell, and the Church survived, but not without going through a period of retrenchment and darkness in which the monasteries preserved the vestiges of civilization. That could happen again.
J
JimG
Guest
I agree that many gay couples don’t believe in fidelity. The sad truth is that a lot of heterosexual married couples don’t believe in fidelity either. Oh, they say they believe in it, but in practice they only believe in it until it becomes inconvenient.
Gay marriage would not even be on the horizon if marriage had not been sufficiently undermined by contraception, divorce, and fornication. The institution had to be destroyed before gay marriage became possible!
(The unspoken attitude of many Catholics now seems to be: "Well, marriage is already meaningless, so why not let the gays have it too!)
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Even if it is true that the majority of Catholics favor same sex “marriage,” all that proves is that the majority of Catholics are in error about the issue, have a heterodox view of marriage, and are in serious need of catechism. And that there are many Catholics who are poorly catechized will not surprise the Magisterium, as the bishops have been saying exactly that. The Church is not going to change its teaching about marriage just because some nominal Catholics oppose that teaching and if anyone thinks differently, they are quite delusional.
- Status