Gay Marriage Debate

[frobert]

You pulled out the political buzz word “discrimination” in the very first sentence. Awesome!

I love (not really) when people attempt to mix political correctness with the faith of Jesus and the Catholic Church (or any religion) to support their political ideology. It is a real hoot to witness those folks scramble to find some way to justify a clear and blatant wrong. The down side is some people actually fall for it.

What I said was that it sounds like discrimination. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Wow, “political correctness, political ideology faith of Jesus to justify…, talk about buzz words” Unless you have read other posts I made on you have no idea of what my I think politically except that I am not anti-SSM or anti-LGBT. If you had read my posts on other threads you would know that I am against political correctness, that I am against both the right and the left political agendas, and that I understand and respect the CC’s position on SSM based on their doctrines but I respectfully disagree. You find something blatantly wrong which I don’t. I have no problem with that.

 

[edwest2]

It seems to me you have just answered your own question. When and where did this happen? Whenever the parent refused to allow the partner to visit. It is an issue - not because the hospital cares one way or another, but because without the legal protection of marriage, the rights of parents outweighed the rights of the partner.

That still does no make gay marriage ordered. Even for heterosexuals, parents can keep a divorced spouse from visiting. I don’t know what you mean by partner rights. If I don’t want someone around me, I can get a legal order for that as well.

Peace,
Ed

 

[frobert]

That still does no make gay marriage ordered. Even for heterosexuals, parents can keep a divorced spouse from visiting. I don’t know what you mean by partner rights. If I don’t want someone around me, I can get a legal order for that as well.

Peace,
Ed

Exact, the parent can keep the partner from visiting. If the partner was legally married then the objection from the parent would not stand. Without the legal protection of marriage the partner does not have rights that supersede the parents’ rights.

Peace.

 

[Nacho45]

Let’s be clear, as if everyone didn’t really already know.

God created a system. That system includes a man and a woman being involved in a monogamous lifelong relationship. This is the sacrament of marriage. There is no marriage outside this sacrament. Now, God being the smart God He is knew rules needed to be applied to the sacrament, so He made those rules. One of those rules is no sexual activity prior to the sacrament of marriage. There are many reasons for this, but the bottom line is that is what God commanded. Now, man and woman enter into marriage, join as one, open to the possibilities of children and the understanding they raise those children according to Gods rules so those children do the same.

Yes, this is very simplistic, but I am doing this intentionally.

Fast forward a few thousand years to modern times. Has the sacrament changed? Nope. Has procreation changed? Nope. We still need a man and a woman to have babies. What has changed is what people want, so they do what they want, when they want, how they want, with no regard for God, Jesus, the Church or anything else. They only care about themselves. So, as a result, the family structure has begun to dissolve, children have absent fathers, mothers kill their children indiscriminately, children are prostituted and end up with their own children having no knowledge or skill set to raise a child because they were discarded, and so on. STD’s are out of control, people are not only immoral, but indiscriminate in their lack of morality and smear it in everyone else’s face. Society has become so bad it has begun to toss these immoralities by the shovel load onto the children of families who are actually attempting to live the proper way, through television, public schools, books and just about every other fabric of life to include the fabrics they place on their bodies. It’s practically impossible to find nice clothing for a teen girl these days that doesn’t scream “street walker.”

So, instead of digging in and promoting the proper, right, correct and godly form of family, we have people who claim to be Catholic, claim to have a desire to live as God instructed, yet they ignore the family design, dismiss the institution and sacrament of marriage and promote the “best of what’s left” such as single parent families, adoption, homosexual families and abortion, while pretending that is the way things should be.

Welp, I may be old fashioned, but I am also a thinker and I won’t fall for the bull being shoveled on us. I am a Catholic and by that action I conform to the teachings of the Catholic Church, period. That includes the family structure. Now, I admit I am not perfect, but that does not mean I work in the opposite direction. That means when I mess up, I get up and keep moving forward rather than to the side or backwards.

The debate ended when people attempted to redefine marriage and make acceptable behavior out of unacceptable. When this is realized by all involved, then we can discuss other issues, such as how to treat people in different situations (though the Church is also clear on that as well), but it’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion until the basic understanding of what marriage is, what the family is, and the rules or guidelines God implemented is accepted but those who are attempting to alter them.

So, in the end, anything outside Gods design is just that, not in Gods design. This absolutely includes homosexual relationships, no matter how nice those folks may be.

 

[edwest2]

Exact, the parent can keep the partner from visiting. If the partner was legally married then the objection from the parent would not stand. Without the legal protection of marriage the partner does not have rights that supersede the parents’ rights.

Peace.

So what about gay couples who divorce? It’s happening.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rau]

****There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples – from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. Let’s think about that.

Some of the federal benefits that same-sex married couples may now receive

• Social Security Benefits
• Married couples get a big financial boost from certain Social Security benefit programs that have not historically applied to same-sex couples.
• Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits may be entitled to receive retirement benefits based on the deceased spouse’s earning record.
• Spousal retirement benefit. For retired married couples, a person whose calculated Social Security benefit is lower than that of his or her spouse may take half of his or her spouse’s higher benefit, rather than receive the amount calculated from his own earnings.
• Lump-sum death benefit. A surviving spouse gets $255 from the federal government to help pay for funeral arrangements.

Is it your requirement that same sex committed couples be given access to the legal rights appropriate to their needs (eg. hospital rights, asset sharing, etc…etc.) or do you need to have the badge of “Marriage” attached the couple?

 

[CatholicSheila]

That still does no make gay marriage ordered. Even for heterosexuals, parents can keep a divorced spouse from visiting. I don’t know what you mean by partner rights. If I don’t want someone around me, I can get a legal order for that as well.

I was simply pointing out that you are contradicting yourself. You said that you had asked in what hospital homosexual partners have been refused access to each other. Then two paragraphs later you explained that it is in every hospital if the parents choose to deny access.

By partner rights, I meant that a persons life partner should have the right to visit their parter in hospital, regardless of what any parents may think. Same as what happens in a marriage - in laws can’t prevent a spouse visiting just because they don’t approve of the marriage

There is a big difference between a divorced spouse wanting access and a current same sex parter from wanting access. I find the suggestion that they are equivalent rather offensive.

 

[edwest2]

Let’s be clear, as if everyone didn’t really already know.

Fast forward a few thousand years to modern times. Has the sacrament changed? Nope. Has procreation changed? Nope. We still need a man and a woman to have babies. What has changed is what people want, so they do what they want, when they want, how they want, with no regard for God, Jesus, the Church or anything else. They only care about themselves. So, as a result, the family structure has begun to dissolve, children have absent fathers, mothers kill their children indiscriminately, children are prostituted and end up with their own children having no knowledge or skill set to raise a child because they were discarded, and so on. STD’s are out of control, people are not only immoral, but indiscriminate in their lack of morality and smear it in everyone else’s face. Society has become so bad it has begun to toss these immoralities by the shovel load onto the children of families who are actually attempting to live the proper way, through television, public schools, books and just about every other fabric of life to include the fabrics they place on their bodies. It’s practically impossible to find nice clothing for a teen girl these days that doesn’t scream “street walker.”

So, instead of digging in and promoting the proper, right, correct and godly form of family, we have people who claim to be Catholic, claim to have a desire to live as God instructed, yet they ignore the family design, dismiss the institution and sacrament of marriage and promote the “best of what’s left” such as single parent families, adoption, homosexual families and abortion, while pretending that is the way things should be.

The debate ended when people attempted to redefine marriage and make acceptable behavior out of unacceptable. When this is realized by all involved, then we can discuss other issues, such as how to treat people in different situations (though the Church is also clear on that as well), but it’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion until the basic understanding of what marriage is, what the family is, and the rules or guidelines God implemented is accepted but those who are attempting to alter them.

So, in the end, anything outside Gods design is just that, not in Gods design. This absolutely includes homosexual relationships, no matter how nice those folks may be.

Absolutely right, but let’s be aware of a few things that led up to all this. It’s all documented:

1. Job one: destroy all legitimate authority by deception. A tribal group called Hippies yelled, “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” That meant the Church, mom, dad, your aunt, uncle. So, who do you trust? The people who are encouraging you to live a life of sin and wear their uniform every day, along with their long hair because they are your leaders now. You’re free? No. Once you accept their drugs, their sex with anybody lifestyle, and their tribal dress - you are now a slave to the flesh. Your leaders are serpents who say “Peace, brother!” but they lied. That was in the late 1960s.
2. Convince women that it’s OK to kill their babies in the womb. How? It started in 1969. It’s all here:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Lies.

1. 1. The Supreme Court, partly acting on lies and inaccurate information, legalizes killing human beings in the womb.

The same year, a group of radical gay activists and closeted gays in in the American Psychiatric Association, ignore years of published studies and research to declare homosexuality, which was a disorder yesterday, not a disorder today -by vote.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

That basic 5 year plan, from 1968 to 1973, is the groundwork of how we got from there to here.

In the same time period, dissidents inside the Church did their best to wreck it.

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

1970s Graphic porn is legally sold in so-called Adult Bookstores, creating the planned addiction pattern we still see today. Worse, they sell “swinger” magazines filled with photos of nude or semi-nude women willing to have sex with anybody. Then they open topless bars and strip clubs.

As people of all faiths begin to fall like dominoes, the rest came. The fake Women’s Liberation Movement whose only purpose was to destroy the family and estrange men from women with lies. Go to now.org

Did Catholics ask for any of this?

1980s Let’s put porn on this new kind of TV service called cable. Whose idea was that? How about No-Fault Divorce? That was invented out of thin air and not by us. I mean - how easy can it be? I saw ads like this in the newspaper: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” Who turned marriage into a piece of paper? Lawyers. Pay the money, sign some papers and watch a movie where a guy meets his buddies in the bar - who are NOT sad for him. “Don’t worry. You’ll find someone better.” Do you know what I heard from a guy I just met during that same time period? “I’m getting married, soon.” To which I said, congratulations. Then he said, “But if it doesn’t work out, we can always get divorced.” Crazy.

So, now that all that groundwork was laid, gay people can say, “Look at how you Catholics/Christians are messing up marriage! You hypocrites! We’ll get married and adopt kids and be better parents than you ever were.”

Know this, my friends. Gay divorce is happening. Gay people are people too, and like us, are not close to perfect. But thanks to the social engineering program that started some decades ago, they think they have an advantage? We’re all in the same boat folks. Our only way out - for all of us - is to repent, turn our back on the world, and return to God, humble and penitent.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rau]

That still does no make gay marriage ordered. Even for heterosexuals, parents can keep a divorced spouse from visiting. I don’t know what you mean by partner rights. If I don’t want someone around me, I can get a legal order for that as well.

If a person wants to provide a right of hospital visitation to another, they should be able to do so, and that right should trump any parental authority. Marriage happens to confer that right. [Subject to jurisdiction, the fact of being ‘next of kin’ may confer that right.] It is a reasonable requirement to be able to secure that right by means other than marriage. But **this latter right ** (to visit a person in hospital) cannot sensibly demand that Marriage be available to anyone. That is the tail wagging the dog. [We don’t marry to secure legal rights - we may enjoy certain rights as a consequence of being married, or via another avenue.]

 

[healinghands99]

The homosexual lifestyle strays from that of the Lord, but it’s not our job to punish and chastise others for the life they live. If homosexuality displeases God, God will judge that person fairly for what they did in life. We need not make these judgments for God.

Even Jesus may have been gay himself. It seems strange that a man would surround himself with so many male disciples. Of course, that is another matter entirely!

 

[Rau]

The homosexual lifestyle strays from that of the Lord, but it’s not our job to punish and chastise others for the life they live. If homosexuality displeases God, God will judge that person fairly for what they did in life. We need not make these judgments for God.

Even Jesus may have been gay himself. It seems strange that a man would surround himself with so many male disciples. Of course, that is another matter entirely!

The term “homosexual lifestyle” may not mean the same thing to all who hear it. Do you use it as a euphemism for “same sex sexual relations” - or do you mean something different? Certainly, not everyone who experiences homosexual attractions responds in the same way.

Your 2nd paragraph is bizarre. One might speculate about any number of things, but what would be the point?

 

[healinghands99]

The term “homosexual lifestyle” may not mean the same thing to all who hear it. Do you use it as a euphemism for “same sex sexual relations” - or do you mean something different? Certainly, not everyone who experiences homosexual attractions responds in the same way.

Your 2nd paragraph is bizarre. One might speculate about any number of things, but what would be the point?

An homosexual who actively has homosexual sex is following an homosexual lifestyle, to clarify things.

Alright, alright, my second statement was a little bizarre. But think of it… he had 12, all male disciples. Isn’t that just a little suspicious?

 

[Nacho45]

The homosexual lifestyle strays from that of the Lord, but it’s not our job to punish and chastise others for the life they live. If homosexuality displeases God, God will judge that person fairly for what they did in life. We need not make these judgments for God.

Even Jesus may have been gay himself. It seems strange that a man would surround himself with so many male disciples. Of course, that is another matter entirely!

Ah, yes. The ol’ Jesus was homosexual approach.

We do not place final judgment on anyone. That is for God alone, yet we judge people every day. In fact, some people are elected to judge others and even paid for their efforts. They are called judges. Your approach is faulty both on the feeble attempts to place Jesus as a homosexual and in the effort to say no one can correct or make any form of judgment against anyone for anything.

 

[Nacho45]

An homosexual who actively has homosexual sex is following an homosexual lifestyle, to clarify things.

Alright, alright, my second statement was a little bizarre. But think of it… he had 12, all male disciples. Isn’t that just a little suspicious?

It could be if they were the only ones around him, but they were not.

Maybe we should suspect all boys and all girls schools, families will all siblings of the same gender, sports teams, every monk or nun who ever lived, etc.

Let’s attempt to at least pretend to be intellectually honest, shall we?

 

[healinghands99]

Ah, yes. The ol’ Jesus was homosexual approach.

We do not place final judgment on anyone. That is for God alone, yet we judge people every day. In fact, some people are elected to judge others and even paid for their efforts. They are called judges. Your approach is faulty both on the feeble attempts to place Jesus as a homosexual and in the effort to say no one can correct or make any form of judgment against anyone for anything.

Would it be just to condemn homosexuality? These things are uncertain. For this reason, I hesitate to make the judgments myself when I know that God’s will certainly be more fair than mine.

A judge makes judgments based on things which we know (for certain) are immoral; murder, for example, is immoral without question. However, we cannot be sure that homosexuality is immoral, so I say it’s best we leave God to make that choice.

God Bless.

P.S.: I don’t think Jesus is homosexual, I’m just thinking that it may be possible. Cheers

 

[healinghands99]

It could be if they were the only ones around him, but they were not.

Maybe we should suspect all boys and all girls schools, families will all siblings of the same gender, sports teams, every monk or nun who ever lived, etc.

Let’s attempt to at least pretend to be intellectually honest, shall we?

But why were all of the disciples male? It isn’t as if he was living in an all boys boarding school, right? I’m just wondering… 12 male, no female seems like more than just a coincidence…

However, one thing that may go against this hypothesis is that Judas reacted like a scorned lover when Jesus refused his advances.

 

[Rau]

An homosexual who actively has homosexual sex is following an homosexual lifestyle, to clarify things.

Alright, alright, my second statement was a little bizarre. But think of it… he had 12, all male disciples. Isn’t that just a little suspicious?

The pope is surrounded by quite a few subordinates, also curiously male You want to speculate on that too?

 

[healinghands99]

The pope is surrounded by quite a few subordinates, also curiously male You want to speculate on that too?

That more has to do with the misogyny in the church. With the reluctance to have females involved, it’s no wonder that the Pope has all male subordinates.

Maybe Jesus was just a little… I don’t know, misogynistic? He may have chosen an all male cast of disciples because he didn’t want to teach women. Or maybe having an all-male cast of disciples was just his preference.

 

[frobert]

Is it your requirement that same sex committed couples be given access to the legal rights appropriate to their needs (eg. hospital rights, asset sharing, etc…etc.) or do you need to have the badge of “Marriage” attached the couple?

There are over 1000 federal benefits available through marriage, hospital rights, asses sharing ,etc, etc are just the tip of the iceberg. If you are asking will a civil union do, legal expects don’t think so for many reasons because of the confusion it would cause among the states from have two different marriage laws. I am only familiar with the concept but not the details nor is it something that I am interested in as the SSM movement now appears to be in its final stages. My guess, from what I have read, is that there will be a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court in the 2017-18 period. It could be longer but I don’t think it will be shorter.

 

[Nacho45]

Would it be just to condemn homosexuality?

Yes, since God has condemned those activities a long, long time ago. Any homosexual activity is a sin. Dealing with the temptation is part of the fallen nature of mankind as is the case with all temptation. I do not like it when people attempt to blur the line as you have done.

These things are uncertain.

No, they are not. It is very clear and has been since the creation of man.

For this reason, I hesitate to make the judgments myself when I know that God’s will certainly be more fair than mine.

We can only know the parts of Gods mind which He has revealed to us. In this case, He has revealed it to us, so I do not hesitate. I trust God.

A judge makes judgments based on things which we know (for certain) are immoral; murder, for example, is immoral without question. However, we cannot be sure that homosexuality is immoral, so I say it’s best we leave God to make that choice.

But here is the rub…God has made this clear, so we can, do and should judge based on the clarity provided instead of mudding the waters with a bunch of empty ideas trying to blur the lines to confuse people into condemning their souls and willfully engaging in sinful activities. Murder was condemned in the same way homosexual acts are condemned, but you pick one to support while ignoring the other. This makes no logical sense.

P.S.: I don’t think Jesus is homosexual, I’m just thinking that it may be possible.

No, it isn’t. Not even a little.