Gay marriage is a civil right

[Charlemagne_II]

I am not in favour of imposing my Catholic belief (a minority belief) on to the majority.

In fact, this belief that homosexuality is wrong is not, strictly speaking, just a Catholic belief. It has been held by many cultures from time immemorial. Plato certainly was not a Catholic, and as Prof Allen points out concerning Plato:

“The “Laws” (Book VIII) rejects homosexual intercourse because it can render men unfit for marriage and because it is contrary to nature and a shameless indulgence.” R. E. ALLEN Prof. of Classics, Northwestern U. Evanston, Ill., Feb. 14, 1993

So I don’t think the attack that a specific religion is trying to impose its religion on all holds. The vast majority of our citizens, I believe, are opposed to homosexual intercourse, and even more so to homosexual marriage.

In this you are right, the majority should rule. But the majority are not just a small number of Catholics in England who think this way. As for the rest of England, if they go for legalizing homosexual marriage, that is just a reflection of how low the Church of England has sunk with respect to teaching not only Christ, but also common sense.

Modern civilization in many ways has advanced, in many other ways has regressed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

BTW, my partner is not just my friend; although she is my best friend too. But she is far more than that; she is my partner, we are exclusively for each other, we love each other and we will spend the remainder of our lives together. Oh, and under no circumstances are we ashamed of any of that. The fact that we don’t shout across the roof-tops about ourselves is because, for one thing, this is a private matter and for another, it might cause hurt to some people. However, we don’t see that same courtesy being extended to us

I am speculating here: because of the length of time you have lived together, and the obvious love you have for each other, some people can hardly believe that your relationship is purely platonic. That is unfortunate for you, perhaps even more unfortunate for them.

 

[Alexia2000]

BTW, my partner is not just my friend; although she is my best friend too. But she is far more than that; she is my partner, we are exclusively for each other, we love each other and we will spend the remainder of our lives together. Oh, and under no circumstances are we ashamed of any of that. The fact that we don’t shout across the roof-tops about ourselves is because, for one thing, this is a private matter and for another, it might cause hurt to some people. However, we don’t see that same courtesy being extended to us

I am speculating here: because of the length of time you have lived together, and the obvious love you have for each other, some people can hardly believe that your relationship is purely platonic. That is unfortunate for you, perhaps even more unfortunate for them.

I think you misunderstand; what I am saying is that it is not purely platonic; it is a romantic relationship

This is a family forum so I am not going to go into any details. Suffice to say that we cannot quite understand how sex may be possible between two women; we do understand how this is possible between a man and a woman or between two men; but not between two women

People can only believe situations based on their own limited experiences. We are not at all surprised that they cannot understand us

Re: your previous comment on CoE; I am not an expert on that or any other Church so, no comment

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Alexia

I think you misunderstand; what I am saying is that it is not purely platonic; it is a romantic relationship.

I stand corrected.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In any case, homosexual relations are unnatural. We don’t have to rely only on Church authority either to say it is so. Thomas Jefferson, who was hardly a churchgoer, authored his own bill in the Virginia Assembly:

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and “Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779”

While this penalty, especially in the case of sodomy, seems extreme by today’s standards, it shows that even so liberal a thinker as Jefferson could lump sodomy in with other serious crimes.

Jefferson had a special aversion to the Catholic Church, yet in this instance he agrees that sodomy is certainly unnatural and not to be condoned. This issue is as related to common sense as it is related to any church teaching.

Certainly Jefferson, like Plato, would view such relations as shameful and not to be countenanced or encouraged by civil regulations.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Indeed it could. Some people do call that a marriage:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4748292.stm
(Ok it’s a goat but you get the idea)
This entirely demonstrates my point that the definition of marriage is variable. The Sudanese people might call that a marriage. You and me might not. US Law might be changed to call a union between two men or two women a marriage. You will probably keep your definition.
Who’s right and who’s wrong?
The answer to that is simply - Nobody. Everyone uses their own definitions of the word. To the Sudanese, the man-goat union is a marriage. To the US Government, a man-man or man-woman union is a marriage. To you, only a man-woman union is a marriage.
Take the word “Athlete”. Some define that as a person who participates in running, throwing and jumping competitions. Others might say it is a person who participates in sport in general. Who is right? Again, neither. They are just two definitions of the same word. While one person may call a soccer player an athlete, I might not. Are either of us wrong? Only by each others definitions, not our own.

Yes, the whole idea that there can be such a thing as a homosexual marriage is the result of moral relativism - the idea that there is no right and wrong, that’s what’s right for me is whatever I define as right for me. This is HOGWASH. There is an objective right and wrong - God has spelled it out for us in the Bible and in the Sacred Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Part of that objective reality is that homosexuality is a gravely disordered condition, and that homosexual sex acts are mortal sins. You cannot have a marriage (a sacrament) based on a mortal sin.

Use your logic for other immoral acts - like genocide. Sure, some people say wiping out an entire population is wrong, but I don’t think so, so it’s perfectly OK for me to do it.

 

[surritter]

So what? Why are there no Catholics rallying against Durex/Trojan/etc? Why is nobody trying to pass a ballot inititive to ban divorce? Why are there no calls to pass laws banning the sale of contraception?

Hi Ashley–
Sorry; I now see what you were saying. But there are indeed some pushes to outlaw contraception. They don’t have much traction because for the most part that battle was fought and lost over fifty years ago. So now these initiatives get laughed off the radar immediately. Gay “marriage” is relatively new, so that is why it seems to be more “on the radar” right now. But that doesn’t mean that contraception should be accepted with such passivity.

Also, contraception often occurs within marriage, so it has less of a public face. But gay “marriage” is asking the state to certify something very publicly. Though we disagree, can you at least see why it might be opposed with more vigor?

 

[surritter]

One other thought, Ashley – civil divorce is not a sin. So that is why it is not being strongly opposed by Catholics. In fact, this is a good teaching moment for you by way of the parallel situation of divorce: Civil divorce is a LEGAL thing that merely divides material goods. It does not dissolve a marriage; no one can do that! Divorce, though a sad situation, has nothing to do with the ontological quality of the marriage.

Likewise, your civil partnership is a LEGAL thing. It does not create a marriage.

 

[Ashley42]

Yes, the whole idea that there can be such a thing as a homosexual marriage is the result of moral relativism - the idea that there is no right and wrong, that’s what’s right for me is whatever I define as right for me.

No, you’ve missed the point entirely. (Were you even aiming?) Words can have variable definitions. Marriage is one of them.
You appear to be talking about “right and wrong” in an absolute sense, i.e. what is morally right and wrong as far as society is concerned. I am talking about who is right and wrong in the definition of marriage, and demonstrating that no single definition is right or wrong - i.e. calling someone wrong based on an entirely different definition than the one they are using is pretty dumb.

There is an objective right and wrong - God has spelled it out for us in the Bible and in the Sacred Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Part of that objective reality is that homosexuality is a gravely disordered condition, and that homosexual sex acts are mortal sins. You cannot have a marriage (a sacrament) based on a mortal sin.

Sorry but some people don’t subscribe to that. See for us athiests, we require a little more evidence than some aincent book from unknown origins. I simply don’t subscribe the idea that my intimate love for my girlfriend is wrong based on some outdated and poorly translated text. I define an action as right or wrong based on the harm (or lack thereof) that comes as a direct result of it. Since no harm results from two members of the same sex being intimate, then I don’t view it as wrong.

Use your logic for other immoral acts - like genocide. Sure, some people say wiping out an entire population is wrong, but I don’t think so, so it’s perfectly OK for me to do it.

See this is where my definition of right and wrong holds true whereas yours falls down. By my definition, genocide is wrong because a great deal of harm results from it.
In the Bible, we see many times when the Almighty commited acts of genocide. A few choice examples, first from Deuteronomy 2:
33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

And this from Deuteronomy 20:

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusite - as the LORD your God has commanded you.

This is an astounding passage. Here God tells the Israelites to seize the lands and cities of several other nations, and in doing so “do not leave alive anything that breathes”.
Pretty good definition of Genocide right there in the bible, don’t you agree? And orders given by none other than the Almighty himself?

But there are indeed some pushes to outlaw contraception. They don’t have much traction because for the most part that battle was fought and lost over fifty years ago.

But you must agree, they equate to almost nothing compared to Prop 8, probably the biggest moral campaign of all time based on finance.
So that’s it? The Catholics, having lost the contraception battle are now just giving up on it? Is that what Jesus would do?

Though we disagree, can you at least see why it might be opposed with more vigor?

Frankly, no. The way I see it is that a lot of people simply don’t like homosexuals. They think it’s disgusting, wrong, they really have an axe to grind. But contraception? “Oh, we don’t use it. But we’ll turn a blind eye if you do.”

Likewise, your civil partnership is a LEGAL thing. It does not create a marriage.

It creates a CIVIL marriage, if not a RELIGIOUS one.

 

[free2pray]

I disagree, being the same race was considered essential for marriage in large parts of the US for many years up to and beyond 1865.

I might also point to Ezra 10:2"We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women"
Which was the sort of quote used to justify the racial criterion in marriage.

rossum

Dear rossum please don’t misunderstand the Bible for being racist. I assure you that the point of Ezra’s comments was to show the people of Israel that they had disobeyed God by marrying people of different religions. Back then the ethnic group you belonged to was indicative of your religion (with exceptions of course). The Biblical standard has always been to marry within your community of faith, not race. If this were the case then Ruth and Boaz would never have married for Ruth was a Moabitess but Boaz was an Israelite of the tribe of Judah. Boaz married Ruth because she left her people and her old gods to live with and worship the Israelite God. There are many more examples of God condoning inter racial marriage in the Bible, and it is never condemned except when God is concerned that gentile women would lead His people to serve foreign gods. To put Ezra in context, He was leading a small remnant of Jews back to the Land of Israel to rebuild that nation. He didn’t want the Jews to lose their identity by fraternizing with pagan women. He didn’t want the Jews to be absorbed by the cultures that surrounded them. They needed to remain distinct in order to preserve their national and religious identity. The Bible is so very against racism that if we wanted to discuss it another thread would have to be started.

 

[rossum]

Dear rossum please don’t misunderstand the Bible for being racist.

The Bible has been used by racists to support their racism. The Bible has been used by anti-racists to support their anti-racism.

My point was that those who supported including the racial criteria in marriage laws, and such criteria were present in parts of the USA until Loving v Virginia in 1967, used the Bible to support their view. The definition of civil marriage in the US, which is the subject of this thread, has changed and is in the process of changing again. Merely pointing to a Bible passage is not enough to automatically halt any proposed change.

I do not accept any view of marriage, especially civil marriage, as unchanging. It is obvious from the Old Testament that different criteria were used at different times. The example from Ezra being just one of them; at some times Jews were allowed to marry foreign women and at other times they were not allowed.

In the UK the problem of the meaning of “marriage” has been avoided by introducing Civil Partnerships for gays, leaving “marriage” strictly for heterosexuals (and Elton John, briefly ).

rossum

 

[surritter]

But you must agree, they equate to almost nothing compared to Prop 8, probably the biggest moral campaign of all time based on finance.
So that’s it? The Catholics, having lost the contraception battle are now just giving up on it? Is that what Jesus would do?

Goodness, no. But I was pointing out why the public doesn’t HEAR about such movements. Catholics are heavily engaged in changing hearts by explaining the truth about sex and marriage wherever we can (friends, family, and forums). Perhaps then there will be enough clout to push for a more visible stance on the matter.

Frankly, no. The way I see it is that a lot of people simply don’t like homosexuals. They think it’s disgusting, wrong, they really have an axe to grind. But contraception? “Oh, we don’t use it. But we’ll turn a blind eye if you do.”

Wait, your really don’t see why gay “marriage” might cause more resistance? Put your personal feelings aside for just a moment. I see contraception as sinful, but I do not see any government publicly handing out certificates saying that contraception exists in a sexual relationship. On the other hand, gay “marriage” is asking a government to certify a sexual relationship that I see as sinful.

Whether or not you see those things as sinful, can’t you at least see a tiny bit of difference in the two scenarios, from a purely logic standpoint?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Merely pointing to a Bible passage is not enough to automatically halt any proposed change.

I agree. That is why pointing to Plato and Jefferson adds to the argument that homosexual relations are unnatural and shameful and should not be countenanced by the state. I would remove the stigma of criminality recommended by both Plato and Jefferson (neither was Catholic), but I think that to require the state to certify homosexual marriages is no less absurd than to require the state to certify incestuous marriages or polygamous marriages or (as NAMBLA might demand) the legality of sexual relations between adults and children.

All of such demands would be plainly flying in the face of common sense and decency; and thus religious objections need not be the sole criteria by which they are to be opposed and denied in the law of the land.

Hate has nothing to do with this, as some like to think.

 

[free2pray]

See this is where my definition of right and wrong holds true whereas yours falls down. By my definition, genocide is wrong because a great deal of harm results from it.
In the Bible, we see many times when the Almighty commited acts of genocide. A few choice examples, first from Deuteronomy 2:
33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

And this from Deuteronomy 20:

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusite - as the LORD your God has commanded you.

This is an astounding passage. Here God tells the Israelites to seize the lands and cities of several other nations, and in doing so “do not leave alive anything that breathes”.
Pretty good definition of Genocide right there in the bible, don’t you agree? And orders given by none other than the Almighty himself?

The deeds and the behavior of those cultures where so depraved that God judged them as being worthy of destruction. If God really is who he says he is then he has the right to make that judgment. Remember that God is just and good he gave those people 400 years to stop doing evil but they would not relent. Take note that these cultures where committing genocides themselves and worse! they were as a society wholly depraved. They would take there children and and roast them alive to their gods as a sacrifice. So these people had killed more of there own people in the past (in regards to this story) than the Israelites did when waring against them and even more would have died in the future, then the Israelites killed in this one event, unless they were eliminated. Worse than all of this is that the Canaanite cultures had an influence on other nations. Their depravity was spreading so that other cultures were doing these things as well. If there is a righteous God then he has the right to judge whole nations. Remember also that in the end God will judge the whole world and every person not just the Canaanites and unless we all repent we will all feel the weight of God’s wrath against injustice and wickedness. He is giving us time to repent just like he gave 400 years to the Canaanites. God doesn’t give us permission to commit genocide this was God’s judgment against certain peoples one time in history. God’s assisted the Israelites in carrying out this judgment with miracles. God’s mercy was still open to the Canaanites even at the moment judgment was upon them. When Rahab the harlot,(as in, she was a whore) the quintessential sinner and the exact thing that God was judging, expressed her faith in God and asked for mercy and it was granted to her and her family. But here is the mercy of God even more! she becomes a direct decedent of the great kings of Israel and a decedent of Christ himself! A Canaanite! a whore! God was just waiting for those people to repent and he would have received them had they, but they didn’t want to stop roasting infants alive. Interestingly sodomy was one of the sins that the Canaanites practiced that God condemned them for 1 Kings 14:24. When Israel did the same things that God condemned them for he punished the Jews just as severely. So God judges all according to his standards whether it be Canaanites or Jews, Americans or Europeans, or even homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

[Zatzat]

So what? Why are there no Catholics rallying against Durex/Trojan/etc? Why is nobody trying to pass a ballot inititive to ban divorce? Why are there no calls to pass laws banning the sale of contraception?

No one is protesting against divorce, because divorce won’t threaten the very foundation of heterosexual marriages!!

Wait wut…uh, never mind.

 

[Zatzat]

Yes, the whole idea that there can be such a thing as a homosexual marriage is the result of moral relativism - the idea that there is no right and wrong, that’s what’s right for me is whatever I define as right for me

.

You have a poor understanding of what Godless morality entails.

God has spelled it out for us in the Bible and in the Sacred Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I’m not buying what your selling.

Part of that objective reality is that homosexuality is a gravely disordered condition, and that homosexual sex acts are mortal sins.

I imagine I could worship a God who praised homosexual unions. Who’d you be to tell me that my God was wrong? I’d have access to the truth, directly from the one true God, my God!

Then you could tell me that your God is the true God and I’d correct you, telling you that my God is the true God. We could go back and forth like that for the rest of our natural lives.

You cannot have a marriage (a sacrament) based on a mortal sin.

I’m not interested in being given a sacrament ( whatever that is) nor am I even interested in a minister wishing me a supernatural blessing upon my relationship.

Use your logic for other immoral acts - like genocide. Sure, some people say wiping out an entire population is wrong, but I don’t think so, so it’s perfectly OK for me to do it.

The God of Abraham committed genocide a number of times. I certainly don’t need a God to tell me that that’s wrong.

 

[free2pray]

The Bible has been used by racists to support their racism. The Bible has been used by anti-racists to support their anti-racism.

My point was that those who supported including the racial criteria in marriage laws, and such criteria were present in parts of the USA until Loving v Virginia in 1967, used the Bible to support their view. The definition of civil marriage in the US, which is the subject of this thread, has changed and is in the process of changing again. Merely pointing to a Bible passage is not enough to automatically halt any proposed change.

I do not accept any view of marriage, especially civil marriage, as unchanging. It is obvious from the Old Testament that different criteria were used at different times. The example from Ezra being just one of them; at some times Jews were allowed to marry foreign women and at other times they were not allowed.

In the UK the problem of the meaning of “marriage” has been avoided by introducing Civil Partnerships for gays, leaving “marriage” strictly for heterosexuals (and Elton John, briefly ).

rossum

Yes but those persons were not using their hermeneutics. You could quote me as saying “Yes” in my last sentence and say that i agree with what you were saying but then i used the word "but"and continued with my point. Bible can be misquoted and used poorly all the time. That doesn’t mean that it is not clear on those issues Col 3:11, Gal 3:28. Anyway sorry racism is a different topic altogether but let me just say that the Bible has been clear on many things such as it’s condemnation of homosexuality but people love to ignore or twist the meaning of scripture to back there already held views.

 

[free2pray]

.

The God of Abraham committed genocide a number of times. I certainly don’t need a God to tell me that that’s wrong.

See post #154

 

[Zatzat]

See post #154

God killed babies, toddlers and babies inside their mothers wombs…that ain’t right. :nope:

 

[spn82756]

Mark,

The government is currently in the business of recognizing and, in a sense, sanctioning marital unions. It seems to me that this is a legitimate function of gov’t, since the State has an interest in promoting and protecting its most basic unit-the family. Wouldn’t you agree?

It seems though that I might argue from the opposite angle of things from what you suggest. I say, let whatever religious or civic group (who wishes to do this) start sanctioning same-sex unions and even pronounce them “married.” Isn’t that harmless enough?

But, it seems quite different to me to get the State to recognize these unions. There is a certain moral influence that the State can have through the writing (or high court interpretation) of its laws, a certain legislation of morality, if you will. And this isn’t a bad thing, necessarily. I think it’s an inevitable thing. That is, a moral sense can be passed on to the people, in a general way, when once a practice is declared moral, whether this declaration is explicit or tacit.

There is a legitimizing of said practice when this happens, and I think this is what proponents of gay marriage are looking for–moral legitimacy, to be affirmed by the Gov’t, which in turn will lead to affirmation by the people. Otherwise, what is the point of getting the State involved in gay marriage?

Someone recently told me something that has been mostly forgotten. A couple of decades ago…homosexuals were telling the government and Bible believing Christians of all denominations that we should stay out of their bedroom. We had no business being there. It would have no affect on society…so it is their right to sin. In two decades it has progressed to demanding that homosexual marriage be recognized. WOW…I thought their intent was not to change or affect societal values. It is a slippery slope and we’re approaching the bottom.