Gay Marriage in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glennonite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To all who have responded: thanks a lot; I’ve reached a sound conclusion with your insights.

Edwest2: That article was exactly what I needed. It’s now in my bookmarks. The end was the best; both JPII and B XVI together make a strong case.

SW85: Sorry about the ‘sass’ comment. I understand your point; marriage is a bit more than I had thought it was. Thanks.

Rosary Fan: Tha parts don’t fit, do they? That’s logical. And thanks for tuning me in to the “Ick-test”; If you can’t let kids see it, there’s somethin’ wrong.

🙂
Glennonite
 
sw85 said:
Doesn’t matter. Again, we’re concerned with the principle of procreation, meaning without respect to individual exemptions.
Click to expand...
Can you please replace the word principle with “the characteristics of marraiges which I feel are definitive of the institution”

FWIW: I too find life a lot easier by not focusing on the pesky exceptions which riddle a generalized rule.
 
Glennonite said:
SW85: Sorry about the ‘sass’ comment. I understand your point; marriage is a bit more than I had thought it was. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Nothing to apologize for. I understand my austere writing style sometimes comes off as snappish. Happy to help.
Birdpreacher said:
Can you please replace the word principle with “the characteristics of marraiges which I feel are definitive of the institution”
Click to expand...
I’m really not interested in kvetching about diction.
Birdpreacher said:
FWIW: I too find life a lot easier by not focusing on the pesky exceptions which riddle a generalized rule.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you denying here? That fertility is an inherent norm of male/female conjugal relations, or that this norm is the basis of marriage?
 
sw85 said:
What exactly are you denying here? That fertility is an inherent norm of male/female conjugal relations, or that this norm is the basis of marriage?
Click to expand...
Being that fertility is only possible for about 5-6 days of a woman’s cycle, then it is not an inherant norm of male/female conjugal relations. In other words, there is no reason to believe that fertility is an inherant part of sex, since it is very possible to have sex without being fertile.
  1. Fertiliy is not the norm/ basis of marriage for LOTS of people. Marriage in the RCC is a sacrament which goes beyond the mere ability of procreation, it is a vocation made by two people to create a domestic insitution with the assistence of God. Whether you bring kids into the world through sex/adoption, while important, is no requirement.
 
Birdpreacher said:
Being that fertility is only possible for about 5-6 days of a woman’s cycle, then it is not an inherant norm of male/female conjugal relations. In other words, there is no reason to believe that fertility is an inherant part of sex, since it is very possible to have sex without being fertile.
Click to expand...
What in the world does that have anything to do with the fact that male/female sexual acts have an innate tendency to lead to conception, pregnancy, and childbirth? Or do you believe that the phrase “reproductive system” is somehow misleading?
  1. Fertiliy is not the norm/ basis of marriage for LOTS of people. Marriage in the RCC is a sacrament which goes beyond the mere ability of procreation, it is a vocation made by two people to create a domestic insitution with the assistence of God. Whether you bring kids into the world through sex/adoption, while important, is no requirement.
Click to expand...
Yet marriage is reserved exclusively for those who are physically capable of completing the sexual act in a manner consistent with its (procreative) end. Eunuchs don’t get to marry. Why is that?
 
Allegra said:
Homosexuals already have the right to think and do what they want. If the question was simply, should homosexual acts be illegal, then I think you would have a point. But that is not what is at stake here. The pro-homosexuality cause is aggressively attempting to do exactly what they claim others are doing to them. (Making it illegal to disagree.)

**They want to use the legal system to force indoctrination of their beliefs that homosexuality is moral and valid on everyone else. They want laws passed which declare their sexual choices to be a “marriage”, in order to force companies which provide insurance and other benefits to treat them the same as a married couple. (Even if that private insurance company opposes the sinfulness of their lifestyle.) They want public schools to be forced to indoctrinate children with their beliefs, despite the fact that most of the children’s families and most of the teachers themselves find their views reprehensible. They want to make it illegal for anyone who doesn’t agree with them to run a tax-funded business, officiate a marriage or adoption, or speak their beliefs in public. **How is this in the interest of freedom?
Click to expand...
Indeed, in four sentences, you laid out the substance of objections of people against gay ‘marriage.’

Your summary is in short what leaders, legislators, and judges in this country should realize.
,
 
Birdpreacher said:
Being that fertility is only possible for about 5-6 days of a woman’s cycle, then it is not an inherant norm of male/female conjugal relations. In other words, there is no reason to believe that fertility is an inherant part of sex, since it is very possible to have sex without being fertile.
  1. Fertiliy is not the norm/ basis of marriage for LOTS of people. Marriage in the RCC is a sacrament which goes beyond the mere ability of procreation, it is a vocation made by two people to create a domestic insitution with the assistence of God. Whether you bring kids into the world through sex/adoption, while important, is no requirement.
Click to expand...
Well, you can have sex for one generation without fertility, but after that the necessity becomes rather apparent, wouldn’t you say? That’s not a very long time.

That you be capable of the marital act and that you be open to bringing kids into the world via the only route any of us ever gain entry to it is absolutely a requirement of marriage in the RCC. You don’t have to guarantee success, but you do what you can to make success a possibility. *That *is a requirement.

Adoptive parents are some of the greatest gifts to the world, but even they will tell you that kids do not come into the world through adoption. Without women willing to give birth, there would BE no adoption. Rather, kids come into the world through biological mothers and fathers. The “norm/basis” for marriage is that those parents are meant, whenever possible, to raise their children and to be present for their grandchildren.

The societal “norm/basis” even for civil marriage is that society is willing to grant a certain status and certain helps to those couples who are willing to raise the children that will make society even possible in but a few decades. They want to help the couples hand on a posterity to their children.

Putting in an honest day’s labor in return for an honest day’s wage may not be the current “norm/basis” of employment for those who’d rather do as little as they can possibly manage while still drawing a paycheck and those who’d like to get as much work as possible without regard to what it takes for the worker to live, but that doesn’t mean that actually working and actually paying a living wage is not the “norm/basis” for employment relationships. That some couples want the status and those certain societal helps while making every effort to avoid childbearing does not make their willingness to get what they can get out a societal institution into the norm/basis for its existence, either.
 
Allegra said:
Those who promote the homosexual agenda want their sexual actions to be protected as well. They do not want priests or clergymen who will not recognize their lifestyle as marriage to be allowed to preside over any weddings. They do not want adoption agencies who will not place children with them to be allowed to have an operational licence. They do not want private companies who will not rent out their rooms for their “marriage ceremonies” to be allowed to rent rooms to anyone else. They want to force school teachers to teach their agenda to everyone’s children. In essence, they want to legally silence all detractors and stuff their views down everyone else’s throat.
Click to expand...
This is not true of all, but it is substantially true concerning the political movement pushing for gay marriage, yes. They also want to equate disapproval of homosexual acts with a hatred of homosexual persons. They do not admit the possibility that they can be accepted as persons without concurrent celebration of their sexual choices. It is “either for our sex, or else against us. If you aren’t for our sex, then we all know what kind of a disgusting and/or small pitiable person you are, too.”

Meanwhile, there is an agenda to disconnect childbearing itself from marriage and even from having an actual relationship with the person with whom you are bearing a child. The marital act is treated as a source of pleasure, while medicine is the source of life. The world has taken leave of its senses.
 
EasterJoy said:
That you be capable of the marital act and that you be open to bringing kids into the world via the only route any of us ever gain entry to it is absolutely a requirement of marriage in the RCC. You don’t have to guarantee success, but you do what you can to make success a possibility. *That *is a requirement.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, I tottally agree with your statement of the Church’s teaching, while I accept it, I definitely dont understand it. For this one reason:
If you are having sex 48 hours outside of ovulation, BIOLOGY proves that no baby is going to happen. If you are really going to be open to life, dont waste the husband’s sperm on any sexual acts which take place outside this ovulation window.

Adoptive parents are some of the greatest gifts to the world, but even they will tell you that kids do not come into the world through adoption. Without women willing to give birth, there would BE no adoption. Rather, kids come into the world through biological mothers and fathers. The “norm/basis” for marriage is that those parents are meant, whenever possible, to raise their children and to be present for their grandchildren.

The societal “norm/basis” even for civil marriage is that society is willing to grant a certain status and certain helps to those couples who are willing to raise the children that will make society even possible in but a few decades. They want to help the couples hand on a posterity to their children.

Putting in an honest day’s labor in return for an honest day’s wage may not be the current “norm/basis” of employment for those who’d rather do as little as they can possibly manage while still drawing a paycheck.

Didnt Jesus say God pays everyone the same regardless of the hours they put in? What an entitlement program :rolleyes:
usccb.org/bible/matthew/20/
 
Birdpreacher said:
If you are really going to be open to life, dont waste the husband’s sperm on any sexual acts which take place outside this ovulation window.
Click to expand...
Openness to life is a property of the sexual act, not a personality trait of the couple involved in it.
 
A marriage license is issued by the state, not the Church. Nothing requires the Catholic Church to recognize a homosexual marriage any more than it recognizes marriages outside the Church.
Since the state is what issues the license, then by American law and tradition it should not be restricted to a select group. A Catholic does not have to recognize the marriage, but by law the legal and financial institutions will have to.
 
Does anyone know whether the CC would dispense the Sacrament of Marriage to a couple who were medically known to be unable to produce children? (Perhaps due to advanced age, or parallysis, or already having prophylactic surgery).

You know what I’m asking; will the Church allow for a couple (hetero) to marry for love alone? Is the “openness to producing children” the Sine Quo Non of Catholic marriage?

Glennonite
 
Wardog said:
A marriage license is issued by the state, not the Church. Nothing requires the Catholic Church to recognize a homosexual marriage any more than it recognizes marriages outside the Church.
Since the state is what issues the license, then by American law and tradition it should not be restricted to a select group. A Catholic does not have to recognize the marriage, but by law the legal and financial institutions will have to.
Click to expand...
That is how I see it, too.
Glennonite said:
Does anyone know whether the CC would dispense the Sacrament of Marriage to a couple who were medically known to be unable to produce children? (Perhaps due to advanced age, or parallysis, or already having prophylactic surgery). You know what I’m asking; will the Church allow for a couple (hetero) to marry for love alone? Is the “openness to producing children” the Sine Quo Non of Catholic marriage?

Glennonite
Click to expand...
Yes, the Church will knowingly marry infertile couples.
 
Glennonite said:
Does anyone know whether the CC would dispense the Sacrament of Marriage to a couple who were medically known to be unable to produce children? (Perhaps due to advanced age, or parallysis, or already having prophylactic surgery).
Click to expand...
It depends, really, on the nature of the infirmity.

Since marriage is an explicitly sexual union, the couple MUST be able to complete the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end, which is procreation. This generally means the man must be able to achieve intravaginal ejaculation.

So provided that is the case, then yes, the couple may marry, even if there is something incidental which is preventing conception, such as natural infertility due to old age, the woman having had a medically necessary hysterectomy, or some sperm motility issue with the man.

If, however, the infertility is structural, i.e., the man is a eunuch or is disabled from the waist down, then no, he would not be able to marry.
 
Wardog said:
A marriage license is issued by the state, not the Church. Nothing requires the Catholic Church to recognize a homosexual marriage any more than it recognizes marriages outside the Church.
Since the state is what issues the license, then by American law and tradition it should not be restricted to a select group. A Catholic does not have to recognize the marriage, but by law the legal and financial institutions will have to.
Click to expand...
This comment sounds like a prime example of someone who is only thinking the way popular media dictates is acceptable (i.e. “politically correct”). I once saw a bumper sticker that said “I’d rather be correct than politically correct”. How true! Have you taken the time to actually contemplate the purpose of marriage in society? By your disordered reasoning, a man should be allowed to marry his son or mother, too.

Society, regardless of religious affiliation, should not allow same sex marriage for the same reason it would not allow a woman to marry her son. No children can come of it; it’s a perversion of the natural order and is, therefore, harmful to society. No greater good can come of same sex marriage. There is no contribution to society, only a self-gratifying satisfaction of one’s own perverse pleasures. I don’t think society should be forced to accept a perversion of nature as “normal”.
 
Bottom line for me is that we live in a free country. It’s a rare place in the world that allows us to practice our religion without government influence. This is a great thing!!

In order to protect that we must rebuff any effort from an individual, regardless of the source; to push religion and religious beliefs on other people. Homosexuality is one of those circumstances. I don’t like it, don’t condone it, and don’t want to be near it. But I do believe that the alternative is risking the very rights that allow us to practice our religion. Not everyone shares our views, and we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Using their morality and/or theology - does homosexuality hurt anybody? If the answer is no, then we have no right to use our theology to tell them not to.
 
Catholicguy100 said:
Bottom line for me is that we live in a free country. It’s a rare place in the world that allows us to practice our religion without government influence. This is a great thing!!

In order to protect that we must rebuff any effort from an individual, regardless of the source; to push religion and religious beliefs on other people. Homosexuality is one of those circumstances. I don’t like it, don’t condone it, and don’t want to be near it. But I do believe that the alternative is risking the very rights that allow us to practice our religion. Not everyone shares our views, and we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Using their morality and/or theology - does homosexuality hurt anybody? If the answer is no, then we have no right to use our theology to tell them not to.
Click to expand...
I’m blown away that you think homosexual behavior doesn’t hurt anybody!
 
Flyingg said:
How does it hurt?
Click to expand...
First, I want to address Catholicguy100’s assertion that our Country’s religious freedom isn’t in jeopardy. When schools will soon be forced to teach children that homosexual behavior is an “option”, and that our sexual preference is a matter of choice, where is your religious freedom then?

Now, I’ll address the issue of harm to society (I’m glad you asked)…

It distorts truth by taking an evil (homosexual marriage) and making it look like good; and by taking good (defense of marriage) and making it appear evil. Were we not strongly warned against this? Hmmm… now what clever entity could possibly be responsible for this distortion of truth? Let’s think…

Last, but certainly not least, it is a blatant attack on the family, which is the backbone of society. Without the backbone, we won’t be able to stand. Without the strength of the family, where does that place society?

Again, think about the purpose of marriage in our society. To create a healthy environment for the continuation of our species. Once that is distorted and bastardized, then it is an attack on the very strength of our society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top