Gay Marriage for Them, Not Us

  • Thread starter Thread starter Everyman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
noma said:
Then it would follow that those who disagree have every right to try to make sure you fail.

And I hope that the “rule by majority” is not what our wonderful democracy breaks down to. For in such a system, the minority loses its voice.
Click to expand...
Correct. Everyone has the right to try and make the government reflect their interests. And this is, in the end, what democracy does break down to. The minority does loose its voice. That is why democracy really isn’t a very good form of government. As Benedict XVI said before he became Pope, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.”
 
Everyman said:
So, although this may not be the case right now, what should we as Christians do if we find ourselves in the minority? Still fight against it? Or simply realize that democracy has had its say?
Click to expand...
Well, if we as Christians carried through with our responsibility to try and make everyone else Christian, I expect that problem would disappear. 🙂
 
Everyman said:
Hmmm…I don’t quite buy that argument.
Click to expand...
What is there to not buy? We live in a corrupt and immoral world, the only way to improve is to fill it with people trying to do the will of God. This would effectively eliminate all of the problems caused by every form of government. There is no good government.
 
noma said:
How do we know what the common good is?
Click to expand...
It is the betterment and progress of society as a whole.

Homosexual “marriage” is contrary to the common good because it’s a dead end - it quite literally has no future.

The proper role of marriage in society is to provide safe and stable homes for children to grow up in, where they are physically, emotionally, and spiritually nourished, and where they learn how to be good citizens through the care and teaching of two role models - their mother and father. The family is the essential building block of society. Society itself is actually comprised of groups of families (communities) working together to provide for each others’ needs through work, education, and through religious and social activities.

A small minority of families not buying into this model isn’t harmful, but when the whole of society itself decides that marriage isn’t really about providing for children - that, rather, it has some other purpose (a contract for exclusive sex, for example) - then the future of society is literally being sabotaged, because without safe, happy, well-educated children, society literally has no future - and when marriage is redefined to exclude children, then the inevitable result is going to be homeless, unhappy, poorly educated children - the adults of tomorrow; the society of tomorrow - children are quite literally our future.
 
Mostly in responce to Everyman’s orginal question:

Yes, the Church views the truth about gay marriage as something that accesable to all through reason, and therefore is something that all societies should uphold truths about, through laws if necessary.
This is because of the Church’s postion on something called Natural Law. I’m not sure how fimilar you are with this, but here’s kinda a brief rundown in relation to the orginal question. There are basic universal truths that are known by everyone, you can’t not know these things. That is because these truths are written into our very being. You see these truths across all cultures, don’t muder, marriage is special, don’t lie to prevent justice, etc… unforunately, while it in escapable that we “know” these things, understanding and applying them are very different. Here, is where we use reason, and while it very possible for all men to use reason and come to a correct understanding of the truth, not all men do. Hence, the Dali Llama, without being Christian, or having the aide of Christian Revelation, has discovered that marriage should be hetrosexual, but has fallen into error about how to apply this society.
Some truths about marriage are things that are knowable without the aide of Revelation, including that marriage should be hetrosexual. (See jmcrea’s first paragraph), and therefore its applicatable to all societies. So, yes, the Church does maintain that this is one of her teachings that society should enforce, but not b/c “we should try to conform our government’s laws to what we as Christians believe to be the moral law of God,” (although this is not a bad thing to do), but rather because this part of the Natual Law that all men follow.

I briefy saw the last link to a Vactian docuement (I didn’t read it) but might I also recommend Vertias Splendor, by our late great Pope, John Paul II. It’s long, and theologically dense, as JP often was, but that document has become the conerstone of moral thought since Vactian II. Here is a link:
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0222/_INDEX.HTM

Since it long, here are some texts I would recommend:
On Natural Law: 35-46
and broadly on Homosexuality: 47-53 (really on biologism, but it relates)
 
We (meaning the U.S.) are not a democracy, anyway.

We’re a republic.

There is a difference.
 
jmcrae said:
It is the betterment and progress of society as a whole.

Homosexual “marriage” is contrary to the common good because it’s a dead end - it quite literally has no future.
Click to expand...
This is a very good line of reason. I like it.
 
Looking at Gay Marriage issues from a purely secular standpoint… they do not promote stablity or family within society. By this I mean, the very reason that gays want marriage rights is to take advantage of priviliges that married people enjoy… tax breaks, family medical insurance, etc. So let’s look at why these were put in place. They were instituted so that a man could care for his family thus promoting our society. Tax breaks were an incentive to “even” things up a bit with a single mans income. Giving tax breaks per person in the household made it possible for children to stay in schools rather than work in sweat shops and mothers to stay at home to care for their children. What do gay couples need this for? They will not produce children. That means that both parties in a gay relationship should be able to work (there are no impediments to them working). Do single straight men and women without children get such benefits…NO! Family Medical insurance plans…another example… This made it possible for a man to care for his family so that the mother could stay home with children. Again… singles do not get coverage unless they work either. Children are the future of any nation, it is in the best interest of a society to care for their young citizens so that they can grow strong and smart. They will oneday be the workforce…so we invest in the future by offering medical benefits. Is this so hard to understand? It isn’t about 2 people declaring their everlasting love that motivates gays to demand marriage, it is always about money.

Ever hear the expression “follow the money” this is why gays are pushing for benefits. Otherwise they would just say to each other… I promise to love you forever and never leave you… etc. and just forget about the rest of society. When AIDS first became an issue there was a push for gay medical benefits because treatment was so expensive. In all my years I had never heard anything about medical benes for gays until this. They tried to get laws passed back in the 80’s for this… I thought to myself… “great! if this passes my medical insurance is gonna skyrocket because they are high risk!” No way should I have to pay the higher premiums because of a disordered act.

I don’t mean to sound harsh but it is reality, without children possible there is no reason that both people shouldn’t work!
 
*Homosexual “marriage” is contrary to the common good because it’s a dead end - it quite literally has no future. *

By that logic marriage if one or both of the heterosexual couple is sterile then they should be barred from marriage.

The catholic church itself is wishywashy on this, I don’t see how you can expect the government to do any better. I still have yet to get any definitive answer on my own eligibility for marriage.
 
Seeks_God said:
this part sounds good to me 👍
Click to expand...
In my neighborhood there are 4 homes occupied by gay couples. I have met them all, and have been to 1 of the couples home. They work everyday, just like everyone else, they don’t parade up and down the street in pink costumes with tutu’s. They don’t bring up the fact that they are gay at our homeowners or community picnics…and I don’t ask, Just as I wouldn’t ask a hetero couple , “how’s sex”? Their houses and yards are immaculate. They pay their taxes and mind their own business. The whole neighborhood knows they are gay, but that is not an issue in our neighborhood.

I am against “marriage” for homosexuals, as it is a covenant belief in a diety. Civil union is another matter, it is a state thing. I can understand render to Caser what is his, and to God what is His. I do not treat these men any different than any other neighbor. My children growing up, know they are gay…and I leave it at that. We have not had any problems in the neighborhood with gay bashing, nor has the fact that they are gay been shoved in our faces.

However, we have had teens run amok, causing damage and destruction. We have had 4 divorces just in our block in the last 2 years. And guess what, all these families were front pew each week at church and touted themselves as “model” Christians…go figure.
 
Julianna said:
In my neighborhood there are 4 homes occupied by gay couples. I have met them all, and have been to 1 of the couples home. They work everyday, just like everyone else, they don’t parade up and down the street in pink costumes with tutu’s. They don’t bring up the fact that they are gay at our homeowners or community picnics…and I don’t ask, Just as I wouldn’t ask a hetero couple , “how’s sex”? Their houses and yards are immaculate. They pay their taxes and mind their own business. The whole neighborhood knows they are gay, but that is not an issue in our neighborhood.

I am against “marriage” for homosexuals, as it is a covenant belief in a diety. Civil union is another matter, it is a state thing. I can understand render to Caser what is his, and to God what is His. I do not treat these men any different than any other neighbor. My children growing up, know they are gay…and I leave it at that. We have not had any problems in the neighborhood with gay bashing, nor has the fact that they are gay been shoved in our faces.

However, we have had teens run amok, causing damage and destruction. We have had 4 divorces just in our block in the last 2 years. And guess what, all these families were front pew each week at church and touted themselves as “model” Christians…go figure.
Click to expand...
I think this is the most insightful post so far. Although the Church apparently disagrees, does that mean we must assent?
 
40.png
pathia:
The catholic church itself is wishywashy on this, I don’t see how you can expect the government to do any better.
Click to expand...
This is another interesting insight. Isn’t marriage a sacrament, something granted by the Church? So why do we care if some kind of union for gays is granted by the state? They shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage anyway. As long as the Church doesn’t grant marriages to gays, the sacramentality of it isn’t going to be affected.
 
Everyman said:
This is another interesting insight. Isn’t marriage a sacrament, something granted by the Church? So why do we care if some kind of union is held by gays? As long as the Church doesn’t grant marriages to gays, the sacramentality of it isn’t going to be affected.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the church is wishy washy on this issue. It is quite clear.

Oh, how I love the separation of church and state. It is on of the best things our country has. Without it, we could be just another Middle Eastern country. America…I love ya.
 
Julianna said:
I don’t believe the church is wishy washy on this issue. It is quite clear.
Click to expand...
It is wishywashy in my own situation. The church has no clear definition for individuals such as myself. I cannot clearly be defined as Man or Woman, I am intersexed.

Neither the Church nor the Government has any clear stances on who, how and even if I can marry anyone of either sex.
 
Everyman said:
I think this is the most insightful post so far. Although the Church apparently disagrees, does that mean we must assent?
Click to expand...
Homosexuals are people just like the rest of us; and no less loved by God. The problem is that homosexuality is a mortal sin. If the people who practice this lifestyle should pass on and did not repent of this sin, their souls are in jeopardy.
 
Everyman said:
after reading this recommendation from M-Dent (I wonder if he/she is a rapper), I now know that we basically ought to fight to have it outlawed: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.
Click to expand...
Everyman, (nope not a rapper heh)

I don’t see this as fighting to make something outlawed - especially something that was never legal in the first place.

It’s more a reminder not to ignore, or cooperate with a poison trying to weave it’s way into society. It’s a dangerous process trying to bully tolerance into acceptance.

It’s worth stating clearly, the Church isn’t stating the “individuals” are evil - it’s the “act” of accepting a grave sin that is. The Church teaches that. There’s really no difference between the persons who perform the sexual “acts,” or the person who votes in favor of allowing it. It’s accepting the sin - that makes it grave…
Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon.** Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.**
Click to expand...
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
Click to expand...
 
Here are the quotes from the Daili Lama… The quotes are from April 26, 2006.

From Bettnett… quotes from the Daili Lama (scroll down)

bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/not_who_you_thought_he_was/

On promiscuity and marriage:
“Too many people in the West have given up on marriage. They don’t understand that it is about developing a mutual admiration of someone, a deep respect and trust and awareness of another human’s needs,” he says. “The new easy-come, easy-go relationships give us more freedom - but less contentment.”
Click to expand...
On homosexuality:
Although he is known for his tolerant, humane views, he is a surprisingly harsh critic of homosexuality. If you are a Buddhist, he says, it is wrong. “Full stop.
Click to expand...
No way round it.
Click to expand...
“A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”
Click to expand...
At this point, he looks across at his interpreter - who seems mainly redundant - to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.
Click to expand...
“A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it,” the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. “But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don’t create life. I don’t mind - but I can’t condone this way of life.”
Click to expand...
 
pathia said:
It is wishywashy in my own situation. The church has no clear definition for individuals such as myself. I cannot clearly be defined as Man or Woman, I am intersexed.

Neither the Church nor the Government has any clear stances on who, how and even if I can marry anyone of either sex.
Click to expand...
That is definitely very tricky. Do you identify more strongly with one sex than the other, or does it matter to you? (I am just being nosy - please just ignore the question if it is too personal.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top