Gay Marriage in America

[lna419]

Murder and rape exist in animals. There is hardly a behavior that cannot be found in nature, for that matter. Spiders conclude their nuptials by the bride killing and eating the groom! What animals do or don’t do is essentially irrelevant, then.

As for the intelligent and all-loving God destroying a city for some homosexuals in it, I think you need to actually read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Do not let anyone mislead you. This was not a select few of the town, and their crime against humanity was not that they were homosexual. They might not even have been homosexual, in terms of orientation. Rather, their crimes were like the “homosexuality” of men’s prisons. Not only were they violating the Middle Eastern rule of hospitality to travellers. As a town, they were gang-raping strangers:

The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, “Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.” But they replied, “No, we will pass the night in the town square.” He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined.

Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.” Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing! I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with men. Let me bring them out to you,* and you may do to them as you please. But do not do anything to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

They replied, “Stand back! This man,” they said, “came here as a resident alien, and now he dares to give orders! We will treat you worse than them!” With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But his guests put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door; they struck the men at the entrance of the house, small and great, with such a blinding light that they were utterly unable to find the doorway.

Then the guests said to Lot: “Who else belongs to you here? Sons-in-law, your sons, your daughters, all who belong to you in the city—take them away from this place! We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those here is so great that the LORD has sent us to destroy it…" *Gen. 19:1-13

The story has been read. maybe you did not understand my point. I said homosexuality was one of the reasons not all of the reasons.

Depending on the book your using it says: Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them. / or so that we may know them.
This speaks of homosexual acts.
Remember Abraham asked God if there were 10 righteous would you destroy the city and God said NO!
Not only did he not find 10, the men of the city wanted to “know them”

Lot decides to give these men his daughters who he says has not known MAN
They rejected the daughters.

 

[StAnastasia]

I found John’s contribution reasonable and it compelled

me to think and weigh it’s merits. It. Was. Compelling. As I come to understand both sides of an arguement, I find that emotionalism slows the logical analysis.

I did not find Devlin’s argument cogent. Civilization is not coming apart at the seams just because LGBT couples live together in committed relationships. If you are in a heterosexual relationship, when was most recent occasion on which the integrity of your relationship was threatened by the proximity of a lesbian or gay couple?

You told me that I wasn’t compelled by his contribution because it wasn’t compelling.

 

[lna419]

I was not llooking for applause from anyone.
I think it boils down to are you a Catholic American or an American Catholic.
This may sound like a strange question, but it is the same one we are asking Muslims.
Are they Muslim Americans, or American Muslims? Do they support the Jihad, or do they support the American Consitution.
I support the Consitution, because it allows me to be Catholic. It may not meet your definition of Catholic, but I don’t worry too much about that.
And the Constitution applies to gays as much as it applies to me.

The constitution does not allow you to be catholic. You chose to be catholic or not. No constitution will change that. Look at all the saints and martyrs that choose to be catholic without a constitution. As far as being an american catholic or a catholic american I think it’s dumb. Your either catholic or not. There is no in between.

Yes the constitution applies to everyone.

 

[Nate13]

The constitution does not allow you to be catholic. You chose to be catholic or not. No constitution will change that. Look at all the saints and martyrs that choose to be catholic without a constitution. As far as being an american catholic or a catholic american I think it’s dumb. Your either catholic or not. There is no in between.

Yes the constitution applies to everyone.

I think Wardog’s post shows that he has two Bibles: the Bible and the Constitution of the United States. For him the difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American is all about whether the Bible sits above the Constitution or if the Constitution sits above the Bible.

 

[lna419]

I think Wardog’s post shows that he has two Bibles: the Bible and the Constitution of the United States. For him the difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American is all about whether the Bible sits above the Constitution or if the Constitution sits above the Bible.

amen!!!

 

[RosaryFan]

I support the Consitution, because it allows me to be Catholic. It may not meet your definition of Catholic, but I don’t worry too much about that.
And the Constitution applies to gays as much as it applies to me.

I’m feel so much better now that I know you can sleep at night! PHEW!!

Nowhere in the Constitution does it eliminate gays from any rights that anyone else has.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Rock Happy, the rate of change is accelerating compared to what? I keep close tabs on my two sons and their friends. They have a very different attitude toward LGBT people than I grew up with. I grew up in a rural area in the last millennium, when gay people were invisible. They were in our churches, our schools, our scout troops, our 4-H groups, our companies, etc. They were talked about, joked about, mocked, ridiculed. And we never knew they were among us.

In contrast, my sons know numerous gay and lesbian singles and couples, through my work, through our parish and Catholic school, through my choir, through my teaching, and so forth. For their generation, someone being gay is about as threatening as someone being left-handed, or black, or Chinese. As the generation dies out that never knew LGBT people as fellow human beings, I suspect this will become a non-issue.

I am opposed to gay marriage, because I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, and grant only civil unions. Leave it up to the churches and synagogues and mosques to define marriage, and to marry or refuse to marry as they wish.

StAnastasia

I believe that the rate of change in our technology, science, medicine, social fabric are changing at an accelerating rate. We have seen more change in the area of civil rights and human rights attitudes in the past 50 years than in the previous 100. In the previous 100 than in the 1,000 before that. That was all I was saying. From a social perspective, I think that the gay rights movement and current trends are part of a larger social movement which has expanded over time to include more and more diverse groups.

My observation was not referring to any moral stand taken by the Church. I believe that the Church’s views should be respected, and it should never be required to perform gay marriages. There are other Church’s and groups who disagree with the Catholic Church, and I don’t think that the Church’s views should be imposed on them. If you want to know my opinion on the moral aspects.

But, this social trend to recognize human rights, as they are now defined, is not going to be stopped by a religious organization, even as large as the Church.

 

[Rock_Happy]

What you are effectively pointing out is that the next generations are going to have to learn the hard way about the importance of a strong moral fabric as a requirement of a strong vibrant society. Just as the ancient Greeks and Romans learnt the hard way. Humanity seems doomed to repeat the lessons of history. Sad, really.

You may be correct, and you may not be. I don’t know history as well as I would like to. I find that the older I get, then the more it interests me.

But consider this – every “older” generation seems to predict the doom and gloom to come for the next generation because of the social change which comes with them. Yet, it has not happened yet. Perhaps that is a different way of looking at history repeating itself.

The Greeks and Romans had no equivalent to committed gay relationships and marriage. It was just not a part of their culture. So, you can’t really draw a parallel.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You may be correct, and you may not be. I don’t know history as well as I would like to. I find that the older I get, then the more it interests me.

But consider this – every “older” generation seems to predict the doom and gloom to come for the next generation because of the social change which comes with them. Yet, it has not happened yet. Perhaps that is a different way of looking at history repeating itself.

The Greeks and Romans had no equivalent to committed gay relationships and marriage. It was just not a part of their culture. So, you can’t really draw a parallel.

In numerous ways Middle Ages England was far more tolerant of committed loving same sex relationships than the Greek and Romans were (except of course sex). Society didn’t have a problem with two grown men hugging, kissing, sharing the same bed, living together and not marrying women.

 

[Eugenius]

What a rediculous retort.

If you had read Lord Devlin’s “piece” you’d know very well he was not writing about gay people going home and getting drunk. He was giving an example of when private behaviour becomes of public concern. Most sensible people who can read and comprehend understand what he was on about. Don’t write misleading rubbish.

Lord Devlin’s piece also applies to heterosexuals who go home and then get divorced. Oddly nobody seems to notice that the moral fabric of our culture is already in tatters, it didn’t start with homosexuals wanting to get married.

 

[Eugenius]

In numerous ways Middle Ages England was far more tolerant of committed loving same sex relationships than the Greek and Romans were (except of course sex). Society didn’t have a problem with two grown men hugging, kissing, sharing the same bed, living together and not marrying women.

Cultural norms around physical space, touching, sleeping, etc., vary from time and place. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were having sex

 

[babylonsfalling]

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. <—That’s where you’re wrong. A Catholic does not have to recognize the marriage, but by law the legal and financial institutions will have to.

No…just because the state issues the license doesn’t mean it necessarily has make that license available to everyone.

 

[Hadrianus]

Cultural norms around physical space, touching, sleeping, etc., vary from time and place. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were having sex

Quite true. But I somehow think that many of the societal norms of earlier times–especially the Catholic centuries–were psychologically healthier than our present day world which seems to divide relationships between fairly superficial acquaintance, or sexual, with very little in between.

 

[michelleds]

In numerous ways Middle Ages England was far more tolerant of committed loving same sex relationships than the Greek and Romans were (except of course sex). Society didn’t have a problem with two grown men hugging, kissing, sharing the same bed, living together and not marrying women.

I think that this is a romanticized view of the Middle Ages’ view of homosexuality. if those men you are referring to were engaging in homosexual behavior, they would most likely have been hung or jailed, not tolerated.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think that this is a romanticized view of the Middle Ages’ view of homosexuality. if those men you are referring to were engaging in homosexual behavior, they would most likely have been hung or jailed, not tolerated.

Those were primitive days indeed, unless you are fan of the Spanish Inquisition, which nobody expects.

 

[StAnastasia]

Lord Devlin’s piece also applies to heterosexuals who go home and then get divorced. Oddly nobody seems to notice that the moral fabric of our culture is already in tatters, it didn’t start with homosexuals wanting to get married.

When has it not been in tatters in the last 200,000 years? I’m sure paleoloithic hunters were not paragons of spousal fidelity.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Thanks to all who have responded so far. I must say that I haven’t found anything yet compelling me to restrict these people…

I still think that homosexual behavior is an issue of freedom to associate. If two people want to live together in the privacy of their home, so what? If they want to think of themselves as married, so what? If they further “get married”,…so what?

I would truely feel uncomfortable with the concept of the above. But if I expect the freedoms to do as I want in America, I must also recognize that I have to allow others the same. That’s the trade-off in a society that sings songs about freedom, and libery, and individualism.

I want folks to know that I am only asking this question in the context of the American value of liberty. My power of voting should be used wisely. I do not want to savagely curtail another’s life(style) without a sound reason. My merely personal (moral) view, should not cause me to force others to comply.

I’m thankful to all who respond.

Glennonite

I believe that the primary problem will be that we may be committing a crime if we want to teach our children that homosexual acts are against God’s laws. Christian organizations will be forced to accept and condone sinful practices.

Marriage already exists and it has a meaning. Those who want to change the definition don’t have a right to force others to accept their new definition.

As Christians we should not force our views on others, but we should be free to voice our opinions regarding morality.

 

[Catholicguy100]

I think Wardog’s post shows that he has two Bibles: the Bible and the Constitution of the United States. For him the difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American is all about whether the Bible sits above the Constitution or if the Constitution sits above the Bible.

I find it interesting that everything is so cut and dry for so many of you. As was correctly pointed out above, you don’t need the constitution to be catholic. I’ll agree with that. But let’s look at the saints and martyrs that were mentioned above. Don’t you think our constitution could have assisted them in their quest to bring more people to the faith?

You see, I do. This seems to be the main cause for disagreement here. The constitution is a tool that allows us to be publicly Catholic and practice our faith in the way we choose.

Right not, the constitution allows everybody of all faiths and atheists to practice whatever they want. Attempts to change this will work in your favor as long as you are in the MAJORITY. As I pointed out above, there are more Muslims than Catholics in our world. Why would you want to change the thing that lets us practice our faith in the way we choose?

 

[rossum]

I believe that the primary problem will be that we may be committing a crime if we want to teach our children that homosexual acts are against God’s laws. Christian organizations will be forced to accept and condone sinful practices.

Civil marriage currently allows for divorce and for divorced people to remarry. These are both sinful according to the Catholic Church. You are already “forced to accept” such sinful practices in civil marriage; the law ignores the Church’s position in this case and goes its own way. You are not, as far as I am aware, forced to “condone” them; a Catholic priest may legally refuse to remarry a divorcee.

I suspect that is gay civil marriage does become more common, it will be treated in much the same way. Has the Catholic Church in, for example, the Netherlands had much of a problem in this area?

rossum

 

[sw85]

It is America and our status as American citizens that gives us the privilege to debate religion and freely practice the religion of our choosing. I am not putting country before God, I believe that is in God’s best interest to have a freedom of religion and the bill of rights. I think that attempting to remove these rights for others will result in them being restricted for us as well. This is not in the best interest of America or the church.

There is a right and a wrong way to accomplish a goal however. You have to first be right and then to convince others the merit of your argument. Forcing others accomplishes nothing.

They are true.

I’d be willing to bet that every preacher out there says the same thing, and believes it too.

I was referring to the roman empire and the perversions of our beliefs that happened during that time becuase of greed and corruption. We had a “state” church that mandated religion and behavior. They owned all the land too, and the religion was nothing but a hollow shell of what it is today. We are worse today for this experience, and the church will be similarly worse off tomorrow if you achieve your agenda here.

NO.

It is NOT our citizenship in the United States that grants us the right to be Catholics – as witnessed by the fact that there are Catholics just about everywhere.

Our right to practice this religion derives from the fact of its OBJECTIVE TRUTH VALUE. It is true, therefore we have a duty to practice it. This would be the case *whether or not *the government permitted it.

Perhaps you mean that the government allows us to practice our religion without harrassment? That is certainly the case, although it is also certainly dwindling. In any event, if I had to choose between a quiet and care-free life and the salvation of others’ souls, I would ABSOLUTELY choose the latter. In fact I would argue that this is a matter of moral obligation.

What you are saying is that you are willingly to intentionally structure society in a way that will induce others to sin – that will literally DAMN SOULS TO HELL – so that YOU can practice Catholicism without fear of harrassment – even a fraction of the harrassment our Lord suffered. This is *deeply *uncharitable and *grossly *erroneous, and I sincerely hope that you repent of it.

Gays marrying doesn’t change a thing. They will still do the same things and lead the same life.

The difference is whether or not they do so WITH THE TACIT APPROVAL OF SOCIETY or without it.

They OUGHT to do without it – since after all homosexuality is grossly disordered. I for one am not content to sell my soul to a godless democratic welfare state just so I can reduce (marginally) the risk of martyrdom.