Gay marriage rebuttal needed

[Joe_5859]

In this context, gay marriage is already in through the back door. My work offers benefites to “domestic partners” as long as they can prove they share a bill or bank account. Sharing a bill or a bank account can be a domestic partnership, but its not a marriage.

What is a marriage? A marriage is a sacrament between two people, with the church acting as a witness. As a sacrament, it leaves a mark on our souls, does it not? Two men who go to work or to court to get recognition as a domestic partnership do not participate in a sacrament, and do not get the effects of a marriage on their souls. It’s impossible. Gay marriage cannot exist. Gay partnerships can and already do exist.

In this light I don’t really see a difference between giving gay people some kind of “domestic union” and what is already going on now. It seems ok as long as we don’t pretend its marriage or call it marriage. I still don’t nessecarily think it’s good though. But, we are doing it already (my place of employment is just one example).

edit: I guess I’m coming from the perspective that the state doesn’t really have any power to marry somebody or not. (my fiancee suggested having a judge preside at our wedding, and I was like “but I thought you wanted to get married!”).

What do you think of that? I really appreciate all the perspectives and people participating in this discussion. My mind is open.

Thanks for your additional thoughts.

Not all marriages are sacraments. Marriage between two non-baptized individuals is still a valid marriage, but it is not a sacrament (it cannot be because Baptism is the gateway to the sacramental life).

Further, the Church recognizes as valid and sacramental those baptized non-Catholics who get married anywhere, whether in a Protestant church, on a beach, in a hotel banquet hall, etc.

Catholics, of course, being bound to Canon Law must be married within a Catholic church building with a representative of the Church officiating the ceremony. In certain circumstances, a couple can get a dispensation of form from the bishop, but that’s the exception, not the rule.

(FYI, Marriage does not place a mark on the soul; only Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders do that. )

Further, you are correct that the State does not have the power to marry any couples. But neither does the Church! The couples themselves bestow the sacrament on each other via the mutual exchange of vows. The State is a witness (as is the Church), and it is a witness that the Catholic Church accepts in the marriages of non-Catholics.

You are right that the acceptance of homosexual unions is being encouraged stealthily via such things as benefits for domestic partners. However, there is a large difference between a business making such designations for their employees and a sovereign State making no distinction between couples of the same sex or the opposite sex.

When we think of how old an institution marriage is, I think that, even on a secular sociological level, it would be foolish to act impulsively in getting the State “out of the marriage business altogether”. I don’t think we fully realize what the consequences of such an action would be.

 

[Joe_5859]

To some extent, the terms “marriage” or “domestic union” are semantics, but the license issued by the state should recognize gay and straight marriages equally. There are domestic unions and all sorts of legal arragements gay couples have used for years to try to approximate civil marriage, but they are all lacking for one reason or another.

Now, what the Catholic church or any other church decided to call a valid religious marriage, is of course up to their discretion and always should be, but the state has no business whatsoever enforcing those views on the rest of us. If you believe otherwise, remember that history has its pendulum. If we allow the state to apply a favored religion to civil law, one day the Muslims or Chris Hitches crowd may well be in control of our country and Catholic marriages will have no standing before the law.

What marriage is under the civil law is not a matter of religion but of natural law. It’s not a matter of forcing religious beliefs but of preserving the common good.

 

[kenofken]

“Natural law” is a dodgy business, to say the least. It’s often been a way of attributing human beliefs to God. Until quite modern times, hereditary kingship and slavery were considered very good and normal things under “natural law.” It was also the same basis for legal prohibitions agaisnt “the mixing of the races” via marriage or integrated schools. That’s no joke. The folks who enforced these strictures were, for the most part, good solid upstanding Christian folk who honestly believed they were acting in the common good. They were wrong, of course, and civilization has not crumbled since these things were overturned. The genius of the courts, and the thing that drives us all to distraction at times is the fact that they are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not Canon Law or Sharia or popular will.

By one means or another, there will be gay marriage in this country in the next decade. I’ll wager good money, or at least U.S. currency, that the sun will still come up and the Catholic church will still be open for business in all 50 states after that.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

There is no good rebuttal against gay marriage to be had because there simply are none that don’t rely on either: A) One’s personal distaste for gays and/or B) one’s own religious dogma. There is no reputable body of science which shows that gay marriage harms kids or hetero unions or anything of the sort. **One of the top expert witnesses in the anti-gay marriage camp has been revealed to be homosexual himself. **

So what? So a Gay man is actively opposed to gay marriage? I find that telling in itself.

and I will begin amassing the documentation of gay marriage being harmful to children, to satisfy people like you who cant see the forest for the trees.

You certainly have the freedom to dislike gays. Under the law, you can hate the sin AND the sinner, if you want. There’s nothing wrong with holding to your religious beliefs either, but you don’t get to force the whole nation to live under them. If we did not have that protection in law and custom in this country, Catholics would have faced Cromwell-type persecution from the earliest days of our nation.

Nobody here (that I have read so far) has stated anything negative regarding gays so why even bring that up? Nobody is advocating for hating the sin and sinner, so whats your point?

And, ftr, if I am not allowed to force my opinion down the throats of others (which I am absolutely not allowed) then why is it that I am being forced to accept whatever drivel they want to say? “gay marriage isnt going to hurt real marriages”, “Gay marriage has no victims”, “If you dont support gay marriage you are a ‘homophobic’ bigot that deserves to be shut up”, anyone who speaks out against this is vilified at every opportunity by homosexual activists.

Homosexuality is not equivalent to race. A man or woman is BORN with whatever skin color or ethnicity they inherit. But a man or woman can CHOOSE whomever they like as a sexual partner. I do need to accept all people as having those rights inherent to the human race, regardless of race, but I do not have that same mandate to accept those people who CHOOSE to engage in intrinsically disordered actions.

The momentum in courts, and eventually in legislatures, will result in gay marriage within a few years. If nothing else, simple demographics will settle the matter. Active opponents of gay marriage include the bishops, a minority of Catholics, evangelical…and virtually all are 50 and over. Fighting a holding action is an ultimate act of futility if there are no reinforcements to be had. The focus now should be on making sure everyone’s rights are respected, including the right of the church to not perform such marriages.

No, the focus now should be on stemming the flow of society FROM a moral stance TO an immoral one. If simple demographics were the issue, why are homosexual advocates such a small minority in our country? Yet, they are a vocal minority that strives to inculcate our society into a belief that homosexuality is equivalent to race and that anyone who opposes it is a horrible bigot deserving of the gallows.

Again, I do not have to accept as licit the actions and decisions of those people who have a desire to perform them. If every time I saw a ford mustang tailpipe I wanted to have sex with it, that would be as disordered an urge as homosexuality is and as deserving of reproval. It simply hasnt been advocated for yet and thus hasnt been “accepted” by society.

Just to reiterate, morals are not decided upon by majority rule. They are morals precisely because of their immutability in the face of societal pressure.

FSC

 

[andyandely1997]

What is it with you conservatives? Always complaining after the fact. “Traditional Christians need to unite” - yeah, right - if Traditional Christians had been awake they would have noticed that the higher levels of the judiciary were being filled with liberals, and guess what? Gay marriage is coming about through the judicial branch. The battle is lost.

It is not the conservative Christians who were asleep. Conservative Christians are in the minority in this country, but we are still out fighting for the truth. It is the majority of indifferent Christians who keep silent, which allows for our culture of death.

**All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. **
Edmund Burke

 

[richardacombs]

Does gay marriage harm anyone?

Yes, if we take Scripture seriously. For St. Paul tells us, “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.” (Romans 1:32), This is exactly what allowing homosexual “marriage” does: officially condones sin.

The Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion extends to Christians as well, who in good conscience should not have to tolerate governmental sanction of what their religion considers (and has always considered) an abominable practice.

 

[bingbang]

Yes, if we take Scripture seriously. For St. Paul tells us, “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.” (Romans 1:32), This is exactly what allowing homosexual “marriage” does: officially condones sin.

The Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion extends to Christians as well, who in good conscience should not have to tolerate governmental sanction of what their religion considers (and has always considered) an abominable practice.

What about divorce or adultery? I haven’t heard anyone say these things should be illegal but technically they are abominable practices as well.

 

[Garyjohn2]

What about divorce or adultery? I haven’t heard anyone say these things should be illegal but technically they are abominable practices as well.

Adultery should be illegal in most cases. Divorce has extenuating circumstances in some cases. That’s probably for a different thread though.

 

[MariaTS]

People keep claiming that homosexual marriage is opposed to children but it will make marriage a sexual relationship. I’ve got news for you, if a heterosexual marriage is only for children then it is also a sexual relationship. Most people opposed to homosexual marriage attempt to sexualize marriage in an effort to oppose homosexual marriage. Marriage is simply not about sex, no matter what you say. I’m not with the person I love because I want to have sex with that individual, I am with the person I love because I love that individual. I do not believe that sex is necessary for a romantic relationship. If all an individual can think about is sex with their spouse/lover then I do not think that they truly love that individual. If I love someone, I will love them no matter what and I will expect the same of a person who claims to love me. If heterosexual marriages are not about sex, as many Christians claim, why is having children so important, why do most Christian men refuse to marry women with significant physical disabilities?

 

[kenofken]

The debate about gay marriage has NOTHING whatsoever to do about “sanctioning” homosexual sex. That has already been done by a solid Supreme Court majority in Lawrence v. Texas, and by many state laws dating back now 50 years in some cases. Nothing the “save marriage” folks are doing will change that. Ever. They know that, or should know it if they’ve bothered to study the history of the issue.

The marriage issue then, is about what gay and lesbian folk do the other 99% of the time when they’re not engaged in sexual conduct that gives you the willies. Believe it or not, they do have to leave the bedroom and bathouses from time to time to deal with horribly mundane things like earning a living, taking their partner to a hospital, PTA meetings etc. Stuff where the ability to marry makes a huge difference in quality of life for a variety of reasons. Stepping back a minute, not all gay folks are sex fiends, or even sexual. Some are celibate for religious reasons. Some are quite elderly or have health problems which preclude sex. Some people of all orientations and ages simply have no interest in it whatsoever. No Prop 8 supporter can look me in the eyes and tell me they would allow these folks to marry either.

If sex were the issue, the church and its supporters would have to insist that the state also deny marriage to ANY couples who present a risk of “disordered” sexual activity. That would include, at a minimum, divorced people, couples in which either partner ever comitted adultery, for they are likely to re-offend. Anyone who was known to have used birth control or who has shown any proclivity to engage in specific practices the church considers “unnatural” even for hetero folks. Under this moral regime, heterosexual swingers obviously should not have a marriage license, yet most swingers today, including Catholic and other Christian ones, are married. If Prop 8 is really about enforcing God’s moral order, where’s the Committee of Virtue on all these other gaping violations? I’m not kidding here. If this is really about enforcing “natural law” and not simple hatred of gays, you’re going to have to cast a far wider net of religious police.

Crusading against gay marriage is not about what gay people do, it’s about who they are. Since you can’t stop them from being gay or from engaging in sex, denying them marriage is a retributive action, similar to a retreating army which poisons the wells and burns the fields on the way out. It’s a way of saying to gays “We may not be able to stop you, but you’ll never have an ounce of dignity or legal recognition while we’re in charge.”

 

[rapunzel77]

People keep claiming that homosexual marriage is opposed to children but it will make marriage a sexual relationship. I’ve got news for you, if a heterosexual marriage is only for children then it is also a sexual relationship.

Marriage by its nature is a sexual relationship since the main purpose is pro-creation. Since the desire for children and being open to life is a very important part of marriage then it must be sexual in nature.

Most people opposed to homosexual marriage attempt to sexualize marriage in an effort to oppose homosexual marriage. Marriage is simply not about sex, no matter what you say. I’m not with the person I love because I want to have sex with that individual, I am with the person I love because I love that individual. I do not believe that sex is necessary for a romantic relationship.

I have to disagree with you. In fact, the Church disagrees with you on this issue. You do realize that there are impediments to marriage? One of them is impotence. If the man can’t have sex with his wife, it can’t be a valid marriage. It is considered and impediment. The reason is two fold. One, the couple must be open to life/procreation. Two, sex is also unitive. I love my husband and I married him because I love him but how is that love expressed? Remember that the two become one in marriage. Part of that is expressing oneself physically in the marital act.

If all an individual can think about is sex with their spouse/lover then I do not think that they truly love that individual. If I love someone, I will love them no matter what and I will expect the same of a person who claims to love me.

I don’t think anyone is saying that all they think about is sex with their spouse. However, you can’t deny that sex is an important part of marriage.

If heterosexual marriages are not about sex, as many Christians claim, why is having children so important, why do most Christian men refuse to marry women with significant physical disabilities?

I think that you might be contradicting yourself here. Marriage is necessarily about sex because we must be open to life, to procreate. You can’t procreate without sex. In fact, the Church recognizes this not only in Her stance against contraception but also against IVF. The procreative and the unitive aspect of marriage must go together and they do so through the mutual self-giving act of sex.

 

[Garyjohn2]

The debate about gay marriage has NOTHING whatsoever to do about “sanctioning” homosexual sex. That has already been done by a solid Supreme Court majority in Lawrence v. Texas, and by many state laws dating back now 50 years in some cases. Nothing the “save marriage” folks are doing will change that. Ever. They know that, or should know it if they’ve bothered to study the history of the issue.

The marriage issue then, is about what gay and lesbian folk do the other 99% of the time when they’re not engaged in sexual conduct that gives you the willies. Believe it or not, they do have to leave the bedroom and bathouses from time to time to deal with horribly mundane things like earning a living, taking their partner to a hospital, PTA meetings etc. Stuff where the ability to marry makes a huge difference in quality of life for a variety of reasons. Stepping back a minute, not all gay folks are sex fiends, or even sexual. Some are celibate for religious reasons. Some are quite elderly or have health problems which preclude sex. Some people of all orientations and ages simply have no interest in it whatsoever. No Prop 8 supporter can look me in the eyes and tell me they would allow these folks to marry either.

If sex were the issue, the church and its supporters would have to insist that the state also deny marriage to ANY couples who present a risk of “disordered” sexual activity. That would include, at a minimum, divorced people, couples in which either partner ever comitted adultery, for they are likely to re-offend. Anyone who was known to have used birth control or who has shown any proclivity to engage in specific practices the church considers “unnatural” even for hetero folks. Under this moral regime, heterosexual swingers obviously should not have a marriage license, yet most swingers today, including Catholic and other Christian ones, are married. If Prop 8 is really about enforcing God’s moral order, where’s the Committee of Virtue on all these other gaping violations? I’m not kidding here. If this is really about enforcing “natural law” and not simple hatred of gays, you’re going to have to cast a far wider net of religious police.

Crusading against gay marriage is not about what gay people do, it’s about who they are. Since you can’t stop them from being gay or from engaging in sex, denying them marriage is a retributive action, similar to a retreating army which poisons the wells and burns the fields on the way out. It’s a way of saying to gays “We may not be able to stop you, but you’ll never have an ounce of dignity or legal recognition while we’re in charge.”

That’s not true. It’s about preserving what marriage is, and defining what it is not. It’s the building block of humanity, society, western culture, eastern culture, and our species as a whole. It’s about protecting the thing that made us what we are, as a human race…about protecting the oldest institution in human history and pre-history. It’s unwise to mess with it, distort it, re-define it, and turn it around.

I’m sorry, but I think you’re looking at it wrong.

 

[rapunzel77]

The marriage issue then, is about what gay and lesbian folk do the other 99% of the time when they’re not engaged in sexual conduct that gives you the willies. Believe it or not, they do have to leave the bedroom and bathouses from time to time to deal with horribly mundane things like earning a living, taking their partner to a hospital, PTA meetings etc. Stuff where the ability to marry makes a huge difference in quality of life for a variety of reasons.

Stuff like this can easily be obtained through civil unions, etc. They get the same benefits. Apparently, the gay rights activists can’t be satisfied with that.

Stepping back a minute, not all gay folks are sex fiends, or even sexual. Some are celibate for religious reasons. Some are quite elderly or have health problems which preclude sex. Some people of all orientations and ages simply have no interest in it whatsoever. No Prop 8 supporter can look me in the eyes and tell me they would allow these folks to marry either.

This is not about sex, it is about the intrinsic nature of marriage. Marriage is ordered to procreation and the raising of children. The two become one flesh. Also, this is absolutely unprecedented in history. Every culture, civilization, tribal group, etc in history has had some form of marriage or another and it is always either one male/one female or one female/several males or one male/several females. I am not advocating polygamy but even in that case it was recognized that you couldn’t have a same sex marriage. They can’t procreate. Granted, there are infertile couples out there that also can’t procreate but that doesn’t stop them from trying. Gay couples can’t even try. Its absolutely impossible. The only way they obtain children is through adoption and surrogate motherhood. How ironic is that???

If sex were the issue, the church and its supporters would have to insist that the state also deny marriage to ANY couples who present a risk of “disordered” sexual activity. That would include, at a minimum, divorced people, couples in which either partner ever comitted adultery, for they are likely to re-offend.

Again, this is not the issue. The issue is concerning the nature of marriage and its proper goods. Even in the case of divorced couples, etc the natural goods of marriage is still present, ie. procreating and rearing of children. Granted, I believe that the increased rate of divorce in this country has damaged marriage and it is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I’m not kidding here. If this is really about enforcing “natural law” and not simple hatred of gays, you’re going to have to cast a far wider net of religious police.

Must everything be about hate? Honestly, I have seen MUCH more hate coming from the mouths of homosexuals toward straight and religious people than I have EVER heard from religious people. They yell at us to stop “shoving” down our values and long held beliefs down their throats but they have free rein to shove down their values down the throats of school children, colleges, the media, etc. Why the double standard???

Crusading against gay marriage is not about what gay people do, it’s about who they are.

This is what I believe is the key problem. I don’t wrap up my identity in my sexuality. I wrap up my identity with my Faith, with the fact that I am a daughter of God and Holy Mother Church. It is sad that gays have felt the need to wrap themselves up in this identity…equating their sexuality with who they are as human beings.

Since you can’t stop them from being gay or from engaging in sex, denying them marriage is a retributive action, similar to a retreating army which poisons the wells and burns the fields on the way out. It’s a way of saying to gays “We may not be able to stop you, but you’ll never have an ounce of dignity or legal recognition while we’re in charge.”

They have dignity as children of God and as persons. However, there is absolutely NOTHING dignified in homosexual actions. It goes against EVERYTHING that God has intended from the very beginning. I have a feeling that the only reason why gays are insisting on getting married is so that they can destroy it once and for all. Nothing is sacred with them. NOTHING. All I see is that they want to destroy every smigen that is left of traditional values and faith. Am I wrong?

Of course I am NOT in any way referring to those who are faithful, want to live a chaste life, etc. I am referring to the activists who act like a bunch of whiny and spoiled children when they can’t get their way so they always run to their black-robed nannies. They can’t take no for an answer and frankly I am getting very tired of it.

 

[kenofken]

**"…

They have dignity as children of God and as persons. However, there is absolutely NOTHING dignified in homosexual actions. It goes against EVERYTHING that God has intended from the very beginning. I have a feeling that the only reason why gays are insisting on getting married is so that they can destroy it once and for all. Nothing is sacred with them. NOTHING. All I see is that they want to destroy every smigen that is left of traditional values and faith. Am I wrong?

Of course I am NOT in any way referring to those who are faithful, want to live a chaste life, etc. I am referring to the activists who act like a bunch of whiny and spoiled children when they can’t get their way so they always run to their black-robed nannies. They can’t take no for an answer and frankly I am getting very tired of it.**

Truly, nothing spoils an occaision like uppity minorities!

I think if you had met any number of gay couples, you would find that the overwhelming majority of them really don’t want to be rabid “homosexual activists.” They’d much rather settle down to a boring life in suburbia, fight traffic to go to their jobs as IT administrators and worry about their kids, taxes and retirement like the rest of us. Likewise, after the Civil War, black folks weren’t dreaming about one day joining the Black Panters and burning down city centers or getting their heads cracked for marching down public streets. . They wanted their 40 acres and mule and to be left alone to do their thing like the rest of us. But there comes a time when people refuse to live on the table scraps of the majority, and they stand up for themselves. As to the idea of gay marriage as a sinister plot to destroy the institution, it’s hard for me to envision anyone wanting to undergo 8 months of planning and spending $20,000+ simply to conduct some anarchic street theater. Would you spend that kind of time and money to undermine a “gay institution” such as a pride parade?

It won’t do to dismiss the other issues (adulterers, divorcees etc) as “not the isue.” They must be the issue, if you mean to say that you are defending God’s will and order. Either your church’s teaching mean something to you, or they do not. Heterosexual couples who use birth control or get themselves sterilized surely pose the same exact threat to Christian marriage as gay people, and must also be denied marriage, it would seem. To do otherwise risks making oneself a “Cafeteria Catholic” and I cannont imagine that is any more permissible for conservatives than for liberals.

I would also dispute the notion that marriage is some immutable timeless insitution which has always followed contemporary Christian norms assigned to it. For most of its history, it had nothing to do with sacremental union or love or children. It was, as often as not, an economic and political arrangement. Unions were strategically arranged between families, often while the partners were still children. Marriages were done to form treaties between clans and tribe. Wives were given as payment, as one might trade a herd of goats or a vineyard. Middle aged men took children as wives for carnal amusement. If Prop 8 folks were really about “traditional marriage” they would have to sign onto a lot of unsavory things.

 

[Garyjohn2]

It won’t do to dismiss the other issues (adulterers, divorcees etc) as “not the isue.” They must be the issue, if you mean to say that you are defending God’s will and order.

If you want to read posts where we are posting the entire Bible, with interpretations for each verse, as examples of God’s will and order for society, you are being unrealistic. It would take like a million pages! We have to deal with one issue at a time. Think about it. Some other issues may be related, but they are seperate.

I would also dispute the notion that marriage is some immutable timeless insitution which has always followed contemporary Christian norms assigned to it. For most of its history, it had nothing to do with sacremental union or love or children. It was, as often as not, an economic and political arrangement. Unions were strategically arranged between families, often while the partners were still children. Marriages were done to form treaties between clans and tribe. Wives were given as payment, as one might trade a herd of goats or a vineyard. Middle aged men took children as wives for carnal amusement. If Prop 8 folks were really about “traditional marriage” they would have to sign onto a lot of unsavory things.

You are right in saying all those marriages differ amoung cultures, communities, and timelines. All the examples you gave, however, are between a man and a woman. You’ve only reinforced our point here. It’s how its always been. It’s not about “traditional marriage”, or even a christian marriage. It’s about marriage. You know what I mean?

 

[richardacombs]

What about divorce or adultery? I haven’t heard anyone say these things should be illegal but technically they are abominable practices as well.

The Church almost never permits divorce and considers a divorced person who remarries to be committing adultery (Catechism 2382-2386) . Jesus, Himself, forbade divorce and said that a divorced person who remarried committed adultery (Luke 16:18). Civil laws are often wrong and change with the “spirit of the times.” God’s Word is “the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

Any civil law that contradicts God’s Word is not morally binding on a Christian and does not in any way assuage “the wages of sin.” (Romans 6:23)

 

[andyandely1997]

From the link below: *It is the clash of two completely irreconcilable views of the world. *
There is nothing to gain by arguing with the other side. Our focus should be on moderates who agree with traditional marriage, but are silent on the issue. Although, more importantly is the younger generation. And this is the agenda of the other side. Indoctrinate children with their world views & the religion of secularism. This is the danger of gay marriage, just do some research on what is happening in Massachusetts. This is how it will affect your family. Or is it hard to believe, it could become against the law to speak out against homosexuality. Our society is becoming blind to the truth. What used to be good is bad, and vice versa.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081607.html

 

[Julia1996]

That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. First of all, if your son is going to be gay, gay marriage being legal is not going to change it. So if your son was gay and married or just had a boyfriend likely wouldn’t change a thing about your opinion of it.

Secondly anyone who blames the parents of a gay individual is ignorant.

This whole argument is so biased and bigoted it is astonishing.

I can see why you would think that my argument was stupid. I didn’t present it very well. My bad.

If someone’s son was to be gay, then acceptance of gay marriage would encourage it but not cause it. But I do think that part of the reason why some people are gay is because at schools and now because of the marriage laws, people convince them that gay is okay or even cool. Over time, they MAY be affected. Just a thought. Not saying that I am right or you are wrong.

Someone who blames the parents of a gay individual is ignorant? I guess you could say that, but it doesn’t stop people from blaming the parents. It does happen.

Yes, the way I presented my argument is quite flawed, I won’t argue with that. What I meant is that it is possible that someone else’s gay marriage would affect the happiness of my own. The example was solely for the purpose of explaining what I meant by the domino theory, I didn’t mean that that was exactly how it would destroy the marriage. I should have made that clearer. Sorry.

 

[rapunzel77]

I think if you had met any number of gay couples, you would find that the overwhelming majority of them really don’t want to be rabid “homosexual activists.” They’d much rather settle down to a boring life in suburbia, fight traffic to go to their jobs as IT administrators and worry about their kids, taxes and retirement like the rest of us.

I am not disputing this however this doesn’t give them a reason to get “married.”

Likewise, after the Civil War, black folks weren’t dreaming about one day joining the Black Panters and burning down city centers or getting their heads cracked for marching down public streets. . They wanted their 40 acres and mule and to be left alone to do their thing like the rest of us.

I find it abhorrent that pro- gay marriage people must compare themselves to African-Americans, Native Americans, etc. It isn’t the same thing. It was a grave injustice to discriminate based on the color of one’s skin. Homosexuals are not the same. We are talking about behavior, not a physical aspect of a person.

But there comes a time when people refuse to live on the table scraps of the majority, and they stand up for themselves.

You do realize that many African-Americans find that reprehensible? I know of several who hate to equate the civil rights movement with gay rights.

As to the idea of gay marriage as a sinister plot to destroy the institution, it’s hard for me to envision anyone wanting to undergo 8 months of planning and spending $20,000+ simply to conduct some anarchic street theater. Would you spend that kind of time and money to undermine a “gay institution” such as a pride parade?

I don’t think it is hard for me to envision it. People who are fully “committed” to their cause will spend any amount of money. As for as pride parades…UGH! Have you seen one of these? They are street porn.

It won’t do to dismiss the other issues (adulterers, divorcees etc) as “not the isue.” They must be the issue, if you mean to say that you are defending God’s will and order. Either your church’s teaching mean something to you, or they do not. Heterosexual couples who use birth control or get themselves sterilized surely pose the same exact threat to Christian marriage as gay people, and must also be denied marriage, it would seem. To do otherwise risks making oneself a “Cafeteria Catholic” and I cannont imagine that is any more permissible for conservatives than for liberals.

I have to disagree with this. I am very upset that divorce, contraception, etc has harmed marriage but it isn’t the same. Did you see my other post on what marriage entails? Again, marriage is for procreation and the raising of children. It is a publicly recognized institution that the Church, the family, and the State recognize. You want the State and eventually the Church to recognize a “union” that can never procreate or be fruitful. It isn’t natural. It isn’t what God intended.

I would also dispute the notion that marriage is some immutable timeless insitution which has always followed contemporary Christian norms assigned to it. For most of its history, it had nothing to do with sacremental union or love or children. It was, as often as not, an economic and political arrangement.

I agree that the Catholic understanding of marriage wasn’t always the belief however there were definite reasons for there being economic and political arrangements. It was a way to insure the safety of the family, the clan, etc.

Unions were strategically arranged between families, often while the partners were still children. Marriages were done to form treaties between clans and tribe. Wives were given as payment, as one might trade a herd of goats or a vineyard. Middle aged men took children as wives for carnal amusement.

You are proving my point. The fact is is that Marriage is about children, ensuring the next generation and building society. That is why there were those kinds of arrangements. It is a way to ensure the future. To me, “gay” marriage is VERY selfish as well as contraception and divorce. None of this helps to build a healthy society. None of it and it never will. All it can do is destroy.

If Prop 8 folks were really about “traditional marriage” they would have to sign onto a lot of unsavory things.

Oh give me a break!! You can’t cite for me anytime in history in which there was a State of Church sanctioned “gay marriage” that was fruitful and helped to preserve society and raising of children. There is no time in history where this could possibly have been done and was prosperous. The fact is is that you are going against God’s law. It has nothing to do with “discrimination” or fairness. It certainly has nothing to do with “rights.” Marriage isn’t actually a right. It is a privilege. It is about commitment and procreation. Homosexual behavior is inherently selfish and destructive. Why should the state recognize destructive behaviors?? Why should the Church? You do know that some gay couples will try to get “married” in the Catholic Church or other Churches and that they will sue them. That is the next step. Again, nothing is sacred to them. All they want to do is to destroy.

If you think that isn’t the next step, just look at what happened in Massachusetts with Catholic Charities. Also, how many other lawsuits will be brought to court because some photographer, baker, florist, etc didn’t want to do “gay” weddings? Where does the silliness end?

 

[FaithfulServ23]

This issue will come in stages. First it is between me and my partner. Then this will become a norm in society such as in education, in entertainment, and in court. Now, we see gay marriage performed in various protestant churches. Once this becomes the norm, then any challenge to the norm will bring sanctions and punishment to all oppose. This issue is big in that it brings disorder and harm to all in the human family. I found that changing a person’s mind on the issue is hard, because of the differing perspectives we may have from either life experiences or education. Catholics have a destination and a relationship, that others may not have, which enables us to feel meaning and hope in our lives. I say pray for the person and all who hold the issue based upon false beliefs. Remember love the sinner but hate the sin. If you want to read a good discourse on this issue read Dr. Kenneth Howell’s email that let to his temporary leave. lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071907.htmlexplaining