N
norbert
Guest
Why is this in the Culture of Death forum? Who’s dying?
- Status
L
Libero
Guest
And how about one who is infertile?
I cannot believe these teachings…
G
Gnosis
Guest
PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF REALITY TELEVISION MARRIAGES!!
…thats a cool bumper sticker I really want. You may think gay marriage or civil unions are ‘disgusting’, but face the facts: gay couples love another and deserve the same legal rights as a couple. It’s not up to you to enforce your morality on anyone. Isn’t it sad that in a country like America the prize of a reality television show can be marriage to some hunky ‘bachelor’ after weeks of competition, tears and conflict amongst a group of young women,Yet a gay couple in a real and loving relationship can’t even get near the rights this “reality television marriage” will have? How come I never hear Catholics say how THOSE marriages are destroying the sanctity of marriage and how THEY should be outlawed?
The Bible does not give us an ideal portrait of marriage anyways. The Bible is full of polygamy and marriage is more often about convienence and politics than it is about love. If you look to the Old Testament, women are given away to men as if they were gifts. Moses got his wife for helping the daughters of a wealthy man water their flock. How sacred and holy does that sound? If you’re going to say that it simply “the culture” of the Old Testament, then you’re ignoring that same-sex marriage is “the culture of today”. Either God’s ‘morality’ is irrespective of culture, or it isn’t.
…thats a cool bumper sticker I really want. You may think gay marriage or civil unions are ‘disgusting’, but face the facts: gay couples love another and deserve the same legal rights as a couple. It’s not up to you to enforce your morality on anyone. Isn’t it sad that in a country like America the prize of a reality television show can be marriage to some hunky ‘bachelor’ after weeks of competition, tears and conflict amongst a group of young women,Yet a gay couple in a real and loving relationship can’t even get near the rights this “reality television marriage” will have? How come I never hear Catholics say how THOSE marriages are destroying the sanctity of marriage and how THEY should be outlawed?
The Bible does not give us an ideal portrait of marriage anyways. The Bible is full of polygamy and marriage is more often about convienence and politics than it is about love. If you look to the Old Testament, women are given away to men as if they were gifts. Moses got his wife for helping the daughters of a wealthy man water their flock. How sacred and holy does that sound? If you’re going to say that it simply “the culture” of the Old Testament, then you’re ignoring that same-sex marriage is “the culture of today”. Either God’s ‘morality’ is irrespective of culture, or it isn’t.
S
SueKrum
Guest
Ok, well, I can’t speak for everyone on here, but I DO think that those “marrages” that go on on TV ARE disgusting! I think it’s hidious the way people compete on TV for a little bit of fame and a lot of money. you are rright, it is distroying the sanctaty of marrage, but that’s not what this thread is about.
The way people married in the Bible wasn’t always ideal yes. But, God used some unideal marrages to bring about certain events. If you look at Mosis and his wife, you can see the the result of what Mosis did wasn’t all peachy kean. when their first son was born, and Mosis wanted to circumsize him, his wife threw a fit and they fought over it. in the end, she told him that his religion was bloody and she cercomsized their son with a rock! God uses human error and human behavior to bring about His glory. Eventually, Mosis and his wife loved eachother deeply and had an important family together.
I’m sorry if you see Christians as being hipritical. You will see, though, that as time evolved in the Bible, men were instructed to have only one wife. You can’t take isolated insidence and say, “well, I guess Christianity is false since this person in the Bible was a sinner.” Read the story of King David. see what God did to him!
Matramony is between one man and one woman. any other kind of “love” is iether disordered or misplaced. two men can love eachother, yes, but not in a healthy way unless it’s a brotherly love.
to who ever said that marrage has to be fertil to be valad, that is not true. The couple still has to respect eachother’s dignaty and certain acts are always forbidden. Because, if God really wanted to, He could bring life into the marrage. if they were engaging in the marital act properly. Abraham’s wife had Isac way beyond her child bearing years. will God do that for most people, no. But that’s doesn’t change the fact that we leave the power to him.
two homosexuals living together don’t deserve any extra legal “rights” anymore than two heterosexual people living together who are not married.
if homosexual marrage becomes legal, that will open the door to all sorts of things. mainly, poligimous marrage. why not? one man can “love” two women (or more) and be compleatly commited to them both, right?
The way people married in the Bible wasn’t always ideal yes. But, God used some unideal marrages to bring about certain events. If you look at Mosis and his wife, you can see the the result of what Mosis did wasn’t all peachy kean. when their first son was born, and Mosis wanted to circumsize him, his wife threw a fit and they fought over it. in the end, she told him that his religion was bloody and she cercomsized their son with a rock! God uses human error and human behavior to bring about His glory. Eventually, Mosis and his wife loved eachother deeply and had an important family together.
I’m sorry if you see Christians as being hipritical. You will see, though, that as time evolved in the Bible, men were instructed to have only one wife. You can’t take isolated insidence and say, “well, I guess Christianity is false since this person in the Bible was a sinner.” Read the story of King David. see what God did to him!
Matramony is between one man and one woman. any other kind of “love” is iether disordered or misplaced. two men can love eachother, yes, but not in a healthy way unless it’s a brotherly love.
to who ever said that marrage has to be fertil to be valad, that is not true. The couple still has to respect eachother’s dignaty and certain acts are always forbidden. Because, if God really wanted to, He could bring life into the marrage. if they were engaging in the marital act properly. Abraham’s wife had Isac way beyond her child bearing years. will God do that for most people, no. But that’s doesn’t change the fact that we leave the power to him.
two homosexuals living together don’t deserve any extra legal “rights” anymore than two heterosexual people living together who are not married.
if homosexual marrage becomes legal, that will open the door to all sorts of things. mainly, poligimous marrage. why not? one man can “love” two women (or more) and be compleatly commited to them both, right?
S
silverwings_88
Guest
To say that homosexual “marriages” violate the moral laws of the Catholic Church is one thing, but to say that it is disgusting is personal opinion.
I agree that people are over the top with these homosexual unions. They can never be blessed with the Catholic Church, and we aren’t forced to compromise as other churches have done with their tolerance of such.
The Church has a right to stand up in defense for her reliefs, but in reality, our Western culture is dying from these unions, and we cannot do anything because they are not Catholic, and are outside our moral line. This is the price for justification of freedom of expression in our society
I do not support gay marriages because of the theological implications that we hold marriage so dear to us, and the very word marriage itself as a unified matrimony. But to say that it is disgusting is personal opinion, even to individualistic heterosexism. I do not want to emphasise neither indifference nor tolerance, but do remember that the Catholic Church will never ever give in to sanctify such unions.
I agree that people are over the top with these homosexual unions. They can never be blessed with the Catholic Church, and we aren’t forced to compromise as other churches have done with their tolerance of such.
The Church has a right to stand up in defense for her reliefs, but in reality, our Western culture is dying from these unions, and we cannot do anything because they are not Catholic, and are outside our moral line. This is the price for justification of freedom of expression in our society
I do not support gay marriages because of the theological implications that we hold marriage so dear to us, and the very word marriage itself as a unified matrimony. But to say that it is disgusting is personal opinion, even to individualistic heterosexism. I do not want to emphasise neither indifference nor tolerance, but do remember that the Catholic Church will never ever give in to sanctify such unions.
F
fix
Guest
S
soulspeak23
Guest
I mean absolutely no disrespect with this, but where on earth does this notion come from? Where have you ever seen, or heard or read of a homosexual saying, “As soon as i’m allowed to have a legal marriage, i’m going to go out there and get me as many spouses as possible.” Yes, there are absolutely homosexuals out there who have a different partner every week. But they are not the ones fighting for marriage. Homosexuals fighting for marriage, or union, rights are ones who are in MONOGAMOUS relationships and want them recognized that way. I simply cannot fathom how one “opens the door” to the other. Polygamy has nothing to do with being either hetero- or homo-sexual. That is a whole other group of people altogether. This notion as well as the good ol’, “Next they’ll be wanting to marry their dog” arguement are completely and utterly ridiculous.if homosexual marrage becomes legal, that will open the door to all sorts of things. mainly, poligimous marrage. why not? one man can “love” two women (or more) and be compleatly commited to them both, right?
F
fix
Guest
The argument is logical and very accurate. Once we reject the authentic notion of marriage for some kooky, immoral and plastic concept that means “marriage” may be defined as we desire. If it is self defined, then anything goes.
G
Gnosis
Guest
because reality television marriage is not some “kooky, plastic concept right?”
Plenty of heterosexual marriages are fake and false, though perfectly legal. It seems many already do define it on their own terms. Look at the divorce rate which is near 50%. People who love eachother, who exist in a serious and committed relationship are asking for the same rights as a married couple. I don’t see how thats so wrong. You may morally disagree with the relationship, but its not your place to stop these rights from being achieved.
And the Bible permitted polygamy…so you can hardly claim it to be immoral. Unless God permits the immoral.
Plenty of heterosexual marriages are fake and false, though perfectly legal. It seems many already do define it on their own terms. Look at the divorce rate which is near 50%. People who love eachother, who exist in a serious and committed relationship are asking for the same rights as a married couple. I don’t see how thats so wrong. You may morally disagree with the relationship, but its not your place to stop these rights from being achieved.
And the Bible permitted polygamy…so you can hardly claim it to be immoral. Unless God permits the immoral.
F
Flopfoot
Guest
The thing about ‘fake’ heterosexual marriages is that the State can’t easily prove that they are fake, something like commitment is hard to measure. So they give them the benefit of the doubt and recognise them as real marriages.
However, something like whether the two people are of different gender or not is very easy to measure. The State can easily tell that a homosexual marriage is not a real marriage and hence not recognise it as such.
There is a difference between people who love each other and people who are married. We are supposed to love everyone, but we are only supposed to be married to one person, a person of the opposite sex. Marriage is something that God made, not man. Who are we to decide that God’s rules about marriage don’t apply any more?
Hence, we are not denying them any rights, since their relationship is not a marriage anyway. Of course two people of the same sex may love one another, in fact they should, since we should love everyone. They should not have a sexual relationship however, that is morally wrong. But like you say, while I may morally disagree with them having a sexual relationship, it’s not really my place to stop them from doing that. But there is no reason why we should grant someone extra rights, whether we are already putting up with some morally wrong behaviour or not.
Fine, call it a ‘civil union’ if it makes you feel better but make sure it’s clear that a homosexual ‘civil union’ is totally distinct from a marriage. And ‘civil unions’ should certainly not be given rights which should really only belong to married couples, such as the right to adopt children. ‘Civil unions’ should be a word on a piece of paper and nothing more. Even just that word is sounding dangerously close to an attempt to undermine the real meaning of marriage (no doubt part of the reason why they did it in the first place, even if it isn’t my place to judge their motives). After all, my friends don’t get any extra rights from the government because of their relationship with the girls they have one-night-stands with - in fact, this isn’t even recognised officially with its own word!
However, something like whether the two people are of different gender or not is very easy to measure. The State can easily tell that a homosexual marriage is not a real marriage and hence not recognise it as such.
There is a difference between people who love each other and people who are married. We are supposed to love everyone, but we are only supposed to be married to one person, a person of the opposite sex. Marriage is something that God made, not man. Who are we to decide that God’s rules about marriage don’t apply any more?
Hence, we are not denying them any rights, since their relationship is not a marriage anyway. Of course two people of the same sex may love one another, in fact they should, since we should love everyone. They should not have a sexual relationship however, that is morally wrong. But like you say, while I may morally disagree with them having a sexual relationship, it’s not really my place to stop them from doing that. But there is no reason why we should grant someone extra rights, whether we are already putting up with some morally wrong behaviour or not.
Fine, call it a ‘civil union’ if it makes you feel better but make sure it’s clear that a homosexual ‘civil union’ is totally distinct from a marriage. And ‘civil unions’ should certainly not be given rights which should really only belong to married couples, such as the right to adopt children. ‘Civil unions’ should be a word on a piece of paper and nothing more. Even just that word is sounding dangerously close to an attempt to undermine the real meaning of marriage (no doubt part of the reason why they did it in the first place, even if it isn’t my place to judge their motives). After all, my friends don’t get any extra rights from the government because of their relationship with the girls they have one-night-stands with - in fact, this isn’t even recognised officially with its own word!
F
fix
Guest
That marriages “fail” does not make the understanding of marriage incorrect. That people use a civil divorce does not intend marriage may be redefined.
L
Libero
Guest
This has been stressed, but then completely ignored, there is a huge difference between Civil Unions, and marriages. Homosexuals themselves will agree with this. People are once again getting carried away making up scenarios that most probably wont happen (polygamous marrigae? civil unions) how on earth can people think up ideas so far fetched?
Marriage is not being threatened.
How about we define marriage and civil Unions, so that people can recognise the difference:
The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law or where appropriate the authority of the church.
Where as Civil Unions are defined as:
A legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex.
People in civil unions recognise this difference and are often quick to point it out. Lets stop entertaining ourselves with these silly ideas about “the death of marriage”.
Marriage is not being threatened.
How about we define marriage and civil Unions, so that people can recognise the difference:
The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law or where appropriate the authority of the church.
Where as Civil Unions are defined as:
A legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex.
People in civil unions recognise this difference and are often quick to point it out. Lets stop entertaining ourselves with these silly ideas about “the death of marriage”.
F
fix
Guest
Two men “married”?? How on earth can people think up such a far fetched notion?
G
Gnosis
Guest
If you think that a penis and a vagina is what constitutes a deep, committed, romantic, emotional and spiritual relationship, all of which are tied together in marriage, then I think you have underestimated what marriage is, or what we ask of in civil unions.
You are simply caught up the in the outward appearances of things. Yes, they are two men, but they love each other in a way that a husband and wife love one another. Just because you can’t understand that does not mean it is not the reality. Just because you think its a perversion doesn’t mean that the love is not real. Do not stereotype all gay couples with the image you recieve from the ‘gay culture’.
Keep same sex unions out of churches…fine, if that is the will of the church, I agree. But the reality is that marriage is no longer a soley religious institiution. It is governed and controlled by the government, it has a direct relationship to the state. If same-sex couples want a civil union, then they should be permitted so. Your moral judgements should be irrelevant, for this union is secular in nature, dealing with the state and not the Church. This is what we mean by the separation of government and state.
You are simply caught up the in the outward appearances of things. Yes, they are two men, but they love each other in a way that a husband and wife love one another. Just because you can’t understand that does not mean it is not the reality. Just because you think its a perversion doesn’t mean that the love is not real. Do not stereotype all gay couples with the image you recieve from the ‘gay culture’.
Keep same sex unions out of churches…fine, if that is the will of the church, I agree. But the reality is that marriage is no longer a soley religious institiution. It is governed and controlled by the government, it has a direct relationship to the state. If same-sex couples want a civil union, then they should be permitted so. Your moral judgements should be irrelevant, for this union is secular in nature, dealing with the state and not the Church. This is what we mean by the separation of government and state.
L
Libero
Guest
I believe that has been effectively answered.
F
fix
Guest
Where?
F
fix
Guest
If you think you can dismiss the complemntarity ordained by Christ with some contrived, secular, emotionally charged propaganda you have no idea what marriage is.
It is more than calling it outward appearances. It goes to the very nature of why we were made.
Just because you call it marriage does not make it marriage.
Marriage is part of the natural order of existence. Religion or not it can’t be changed into something else.
The natural moral law is real. It applies to all whether they accept reality or reject it.
L
Libero
Guest
Ah yes, but Gnosis was careful here to use Civil Unions, wasn’t he. Further more, I cannot see how Gnosis has dismissed the theological value of marriage, but has rather said that it is not physical elements that measure a couples love for one another.
And yet it has been proven that there are particular scientific irregularites that occur in homosexuals are developing, the hormonal cycles are not the same, causing SSA. Homosexuality, it would appear is not a choice but rather something people are created as, and a orientation that occurs throughout nature.
And yet there are such terrible violations which nobody seem to campaign over, including yourself fix. Homosexuality appears to be practically the only topic contrary to the natural moral law that so many wish to condemn. This is clear cherry picking of the Catholic teachings that people enforce and promote.
F
fix
Guest
It takes more than one’s understanding of love to contract a marriage. Civil unions simply are a tool to imitate marriage. They, too, are wrong.
You have no proof of this and it really does not matter. That SSA may be due to genetic, or other, influences does not lead anyone to conclude marriage is licit for folks of the same sex.
This is illogical. Homosexual issues are in the news daily. They are part of a constant assault on our culture. To accuse of cherry picking is without proof and insulting.
L
Libero
Guest
This is merely your opinion, nothing more. There is no significant proof of this.
This is an established fact within the scientific community, there is proof. Whilst my teacher did not provide any at the time, he said that it is very possible for homosexuality to be genetic, which is why, very often gay men may look effeminete, or lesbians less lady like (although this is only in some cases), in such cases it can be due to irregularities in the gametes that formed that person. In other circumstances, it can be due to the hormonal development. This can be seen within nature, as the endocrine research facility found that 8% of sheep were homosexually orientated. Whilst you may dismiss this, I shall not, it effectively destroys cries that homosexualitry is a choice that could effectively be reversed. In recognising this, one has to consider the rights of the homosexual as a person, they deserve to have legally recognised unions, even though not marriages. Further more, nobody is arguing that a marriage within the eyes of God is not licit for homosexuals, as I have stated to ignore this, or to make up that Civil Unions are an imitation marriage is ignorant.
But yet it is true, pre marriage sex, casual use of drugs, pornography, increasing rates of crime, violence, war, killing, intolerance, misuse of alcohol are all just as damaging to our society, and yet so few campaign against these when we compare to the rate of those who are campaigning against anything to do with homosexuality, some times it does not even qualify as campagining and is in fact just complaining.
- Status