Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[brianwalden]

It’s no skin off my nose if you believe a Catholic marriage can only be between two opposite-sexed people; but why, oh why, do you feel compelled to make sure everyone else’s idea of marriage is Catholic?

Midrath, I think you’re misunderstanding what we’re saying. The distinction we make in marriage isn’t Catholic and non-Catholic; it’s between natural and sacramental marriage. We believe that God instituted natural marriage as the union between a man and a woman in order to raise a family. God also created sacramental marriage, which raises up marriage to a participation in the life of Christ. Just because a marriage isn’t sacramental doesn’t mean people can define a marriage any way they want. God still created natural marriage for all people whether they are Christian or not.

We’re not trying to make everyone’s idea of marriage be Catholic - if we were we’d require everyone to enter into sacramental marriages. We’re just trying to prevent people from changing the nature of marriage when only God has the right to do so. I know you disagree with this, but the OP asked why we make such a big deal about marriage and this is why. It’s no skin off my nose if people of the same sex choose to live together, but why, oh why do they feel compelled to change the God-given nature of marriage?

 

[NPS]

There are several reasons to object to gay “marriage” but I’ll begin with just one.

Human sexuality is taught in schools around the 4th grade in most states. This includes examples of all sexual activity engaged in between a man and woman.

Many social scientists, school administrators and politicans are continually trying to lower the grade level in which these things are taught. I’m told Barack Obama wants to make kindergarten the grade in which sexual activity is taught.

Understand that when homosexual “marriage” is legalized it will be legally mandatory to add homosexual sexual teaching into the existing sexual teaching so as not to “discriminate”. That means whatever grade human sexuality is taught, that age of child will be indoctrinated into that teaching.

Make no mistake—IT WILL BE ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO NOT TEACH YOUR KINDERGARTENER ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX.

Think for a moment about the far-reaching consequences of this nation’s five-year-olds learning homosexual sex.

Welcome to the “enlightened” world. “No big deal”? That’s what they want you to believe.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I think the basic building block of any civilised community is the family unit; Father, Mother and children.

If you want to mess with the family unit, then you are messing with the building blocks of our society.

If the homosexuals want build a community with their morals, so be it; But please do it in somebody else’s country, and not mine.

 

[Test_Tube]

It’s not right to expect people of a different sexual orientation to go without a relationship or love. If you’re not gay, why do those who are bother you? I mean, how do their actions harm you?

 

[NPS]

It’s not right to expect people of a different sexual orientation to go without a relationship or love. If you’re not gay, why do those who are bother you? I mean, how do their actions harm you?

Please explain how not letting someone redefine marriage is forcing them to “go without a relationship or love”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The big deal is that we do not, in a republic, under the aegis of democracy, arbitrarily change the definition of a legal institution without ‘representation’.

Imagine that I insist that from now on, “marriage” no longer is restricted to two people, but may be anything from one person marrying him/herself, to an unlimited number of people marrying each other.

And, of course, with all the legal rights and appurtenances thereof. I could, as a single person, “marry” myself and claim myself on taxes as two people; self and spouse. I could be part of a 20 person ‘marriage’. All of this, mind you, because it is my ‘right’ to marry whomever I chose.

Why can this ‘not’ happen under the same precedent as those seeking ‘gay’ marriages? Why are those who want to be more (or less) than ‘two’ in a marriage discriminated against?

Can’t I ‘love’ myself? Can’t I love equally two–or three–or four or more people?

If ‘gay’ marriage manages to establish itself as ‘marriage’ despite any changing of the millennia old tradition of ‘one man and one woman’–it will be very interesting to see if polygamy, polyandry, and ‘marrying oneself’ will not be the next step. After all, we no longer limit to ‘man and woman’ --why would we limit it to ‘one and one’?

 

[KarenNC]

The problem as I see it (and forgive me and correct me if I am wrong) is this.

Where do they want to get married??? Most of them want to be married in church. If it becomes legal for two people of the same sex to be married ( as I believe in one or two states it has) what then happens??? A church does not want to marry them due to wholly sound scripture and because of seperation of church and state lawfully they have a right to be married no matter what we say then a lawsuit is filed and it will be. and if the present hate crimes agenda by gay and lesbian rights goes into effect we then open ourselves to having to allow it or face breaking the law with the alleged hate crime.

The Catholic Church (or any other religious body for that matter) is not required by law to provide a sacramental marriage to anyone that they do not choose to do so for, regardless of whether such a marriage is legal in the United States. There have not been lawsuits requiring religious churches to perform religious marriages for divorced couples, for interracial couples, for interfaith couples, for couples who are cohabiting, etc. Yes, “lawfully they have a right to be married no matter what we say” if it is legal for them to do so but that has not lead to the consequences you propose in any other situation.

Where are the law suits against churches in the states in which same sex marriage is legal? Where is your data to support your allegation that “most of them want to get married in church” and further that those that do want to get married in church want to get married in a church that teaches against same sex relationships?

 

[brianwalden]

It’s not right to expect people of a different sexual orientation to go without a relationship or love. If you’re not gay, why do those who are bother you? I mean, how do their actions harm you?

1. Who says anyone has to go without relationships?
2. Who says anyone has to go without love?
3. What people do in their private lives doesn’t bother me.
4. When people try to label their private sins as a public good, it bothers me. I sin, you sin, we all sin. But when we start calling sin good we’re all in trouble.
5. Falsely redefining marriage - whether its through homosexuality, contraception, “open” marriages, or whatever - harms society.

God has defined marriage. Not everyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is called to marriage. This does not mean they must go through life without relationships or without love. I agree with you that its wrong to ask people to go without relationships or love, but who here has asked that of anyone?

 

[Mirdath]

If ‘gay’ marriage manages to establish itself as ‘marriage’ despite any changing of the millennia old tradition of ‘one man and one woman’–it will be very interesting to see if polygamy, polyandry, and ‘marrying oneself’ will not be the next step. After all, we no longer limit to ‘man and woman’ --why would we limit it to ‘one and one’?

Slippery slope fallacy.

brianwalden:

God has defined marriage. Not everyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is called to marriage. This does not mean they must go through life without relationships or without love. I agree with you that its wrong to ask people to go without relationships or love, but who here has asked that of anyone?

See, thing is, a lot of people don’t believe God defined it like that, don’t believe in your God, or don’t believe in any god at all! Why shouldn’t these people be represented by a secular government? Why should their interests and beliefs not be protected just as yours are?

 

[Bishopite]

Now I know (and agree) that a true marriage is between a man and a woman, under God, with the intent to procreate. (Note what I put in bold, it lends to the point I am trying to make.) In the eyes of a Christian, then, a marriage outside of the Church and under the state is not a true marriage. It may classify as a marriage under American law, but not under the Law of God.

No, some marriages of non-Catholics and which are outside Catholic the church can be valid and some most certainly are sacramental marriages.

With that said, why do Christians make such a big deal about gay marriage?

Because it IS a “big deal” to God who condemned it in Genesis 19:24-29 in the story of Sodom and Gamorha. And then in 1 Cor 6:9-11; that’s the big deal. And because it is the begining of the destruction of a true family, and because radical homosexual groups want to eventually convince society that their lifestyle is superior to conventional/historical marriage.

If anything, I would have thought that the attitude would be that “You can have a civil union under the state and call it a ‘marriage’ if you want, but the union is not even under God in the first place so we will not recognize it as such.”
Hypothetically speaking, if two gay men or lesbian women wish to be “married,” love each other, and yet, not commit any homosexual acts, what is the moral problem? 1) It is not really a marriage but rather mistaken nomenclature, 2) No homosexual acts are committed and 3) Two people are personally committed to love and support each other. Surely love is not a sin?

Hypothetically speaking yes it would be alright if they stay celibate and repent of their behavior in the eyes of God. The “love” you are describing is that of a possible philia (the friendship type of love) for each other or even agape (unconditional supernatural love) for each other, however they would not be able to have eros love being it is the erotic sexual type of love reserved for a man and a woman.
The moral problem is that homosexual acts aren’t just condemned by scripture for they were condemned before scripture was written; they are condemned by Christianity essentially because they are an act of sterile sex which are outside the bounds of the natural law of God being the primary function of a sexual union is procreation, however there are secondary and teritiary effects also.
A decent analogy to this is food. A person eats food primarily for nutritional means, that is the primary function of food. There are secondary and tertiary functions of food, it tastes good and smells good. However, if a person eats a meal or food and then goes into the bathroom and throws it up, that becomes a problem which we call bulimia; a disordered function within the process of eating. And it is disordered because it violates the foods primary function. The spilling of the mans seed outside of its primary function, which is spilling into the woman, is a disordered function and violation of the natural moral law of God just as purposefully throwing up food after eating.

 

[brianwalden]

See, thing is, a lot of people don’t believe God defined it like that, don’t believe in your God, or don’t believe in any god at all! Why shouldn’t these people be represented by a secular government? Why should their interests and beliefs not be protected just as yours are?

These people are represented by a secular government. Why would you imply that they aren’t? Their interests and beliefs are protected every bit as much as mine are. They have the right to try to change the law, we have the right to try to keep it the same. Why should only people who believe marriage wasn’t established by God be represented by a secular government, as you claim? You seem to be saying that the people who want to change marriage have every right to their beliefs, but those that don’t want to change marriage have no right.

The fact that I have religious beliefs for why the government shouldn’t endorse gay marriage doesn’t violate the separation the Church and State. For the record, I also believe murder and stealing are wrong for religious reasons. In fact, it would be a violation of Church and State if I wasn’t allowed to hold these opinions because they’re rooted in my religious beliefs. I have the right to express my beliefs and to try to get them enacted into law. You have the same right - which means we may disagree and that’s ok. But please don’t try to establish a dictatorship of relativism where we don’t have the right to profess our beliefs as truths.

 

[Bishopite]

See, thing is, a lot of people don’t believe God defined it like that, don’t believe in your God, or don’t believe in any god at all! Why shouldn’t these people be represented by a secular government?

Whether a person accepts our definition of God is irrelevant, for certain moral truths are not relative but are immutable and absolute as they were written on their hearts by God, and people are ultimately without excuse if they say they didn’t know that their actions were wrong as we all know deep down within our concscience that certain acts are wrong; the Apostle Paul wrote
of those in Romans 1:15-16
“They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
This is what secularism leads to.

And because secularism can not establish any sustainable moral objective moral code, but always relies on a subjective moral code which is the product of mere men. And because it violates the natural moral law of God by worshipping the creation instead of the creator which the Apostle Paul wrote about in Romans 1:18-25
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. "

Why should their interests and beliefs not be protected just as yours are?

Of course they should be protected just are ours.

 

[havemercy]

But they are not sacramental marriages.

Actually, they are. They are sacramental in a broader sense.

But you are right, they are not sacraments in the proper sense.

 

[Aramis]

It’s not right to expect people of a different sexual orientation to go without a relationship or love. If you’re not gay, why do those who are bother you? I mean, how do their actions harm you?

I don’t expect them to go without love nor relationships. I just don’t want what I believe is a mortal sin being taught as “perfectly normal” in the scholastic system.

Love and sex are not the same, either.

Oh, and d to answer Midrath’s question why would they want to get married in a church that considers them a sinner?

Simple - many of the faiths that accept gays are in fact openly anti-catholic. If one can get all the priests locked up on hate crimes, one “cripples” the church… a goal of many of the religions out there.

It’s been used against episcopals in Canada. There is no reason to believe it won’t happen in the US.

Of course, I live in a state where marriage is defined by constitutional amendment as being between a man and a woman. Note the singulars…

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I don’t follow you. Are you denying that marriage between two baptized non-Catholic is a Sacrament?

The Catholic Encyclopedia quote you posted does not support such a position. The CE i snot an authoritative document. Canon Law is.

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

OK so under your premise do two divorced (divorce is not recognized by the Church but is simply a secular matter altogether) non-Catholic individuals who remarry obtain a “sacramental” simply because they go before a magistrate?

woop, 3000 posts!

 

[NPS]

The big deal is that we do not, in a republic, under the aegis of democracy, arbitrarily change the definition of a legal institution without ‘representation’.

Exactly right. To change the definition of a legal institution without representation you must show cause to do so. Political correctness does not constitute cause.

That’s why those in favor of such a change must cajole people in power and sneak it past others. They have no real legal reason to change the definition of the institution and they certainly can’t put it to a vote—they’d lose by a very large margin.

Everyone has their line to draw, even those in favor of gay “marriage”. Ask someone in favor of gay marriage if two brothers could marry and they squirm and say “Of course not–don’t be ridiculous!”

Yet it’s the same principle. WHY NOT? They love each other after all. They’re not messing with the gene pool.
Who are YOU to say these two people cannot have a loving relationship in life? [sniff-sniff]

EVERYONE reading this has their own line on this issue. Why is the traditional, christian, legal line not as good as YOUR line?

And why is YOUR line better than the line drawn by the guy who wants four wives? Or the guy who wants to marry his brother or cousin?

The onus of proof of need for change on those who want to change it should be heavier than those who defend the traditional legal definition.

Prove the need!!! Then we’ll talk.

Can’t prove need? Then put it to a vote. Care to guess which way that will turn out?

 

[brianwalden]

OK so under your premise do two divorced (divorce is not recognized by the Church but is simply a secular matter altogether) non-Catholic individuals who remarry obtain a “sacramental” simply because they go before a magistrate?

woop, 3000 posts!

Just to clear something up, it’s not 1ke’s premise. He’s not just pulling stuff out of his hat; he’s saying what the Church actually teaches about marriage.

I believe when it comes to non-Catholic Christians the Church assumes the first marriage is valid unless proven otherwise. So if two divorced non-Catholic Christians get remarried, the Church would not presume their second marriage to be valid because the two people are not free to marry another spouse. But of course, this is all moot unless one or both of them are trying to become Catholic or something like that where the Church would be involved. I think that’s how the Church handles situations like this, but I’m no expert when you get down to the details. Someone else may be able to find a direct quote from the Catechism or Canon law or something that explains it.

 

[Mirdath]

These people are represented by a secular government. Why would you imply that they aren’t? Their interests and beliefs are protected every bit as much as mine are. They have the right to try to change the law, we have the right to try to keep it the same. Why should only people who believe marriage wasn’t established by God be represented by a secular government, as you claim? You seem to be saying that the people who want to change marriage have every right to their beliefs, but those that don’t want to change marriage have no right.

What I’m saying is that you – and, by extension, everyone else – have no right to enforce your religious beliefs on the nature of anything on all of us.

For the record, I also believe murder and stealing are wrong for religious reasons. In fact, it would be a violation of Church and State if I wasn’t allowed to hold these opinions because they’re rooted in my religious beliefs. I have the right to express my beliefs and to try to get them enacted into law. You have the same right - which means we may disagree and that’s ok. But please don’t try to establish a dictatorship of relativism where we don’t have the right to profess our beliefs as truths.

If your religious beliefs and fear of hell are all that’s keeping you from stealing, murdering, and raping, I am very, very afraid. I need no fear of eternal consequences to know that these actions are wrong; it’s easy to see they directly harm others.

Bishopite:

Whether a person accepts our definition of God is irrelevant, for certain moral truths are not relative but are immutable and absolute as they were written on their hearts by God, and people are ultimately without excuse if they say they didn’t know that their actions were wrong as we all know deep down within our concscience that certain acts are wrong;

This argument holds absolutely no water with anyone who does not accept your definition of God. Like me. I’ve heard the whole natural law thing before, it’s baloney, please spare me.

And because secularism can not establish any sustainable moral objective moral code, but always relies on a subjective moral code which is the product of mere men. And because it violates the natural moral law of God by worshipping the creation instead of the creator which the Apostle Paul wrote about in Romans 1:18-25

Double baloney. Objective, absolute morality in no way requires religious belief. Read your Kant. Heck, read your bible and try to look for a mention of God in the Golden Rule.

And what is ‘secularism’ anyway?

 

[KarenNC]

There are several reasons to object to gay “marriage” but I’ll begin with just one.

Human sexuality is taught in schools around the 4th grade in most states. This includes examples of all sexual activity engaged in between a man and woman.

Many social scientists, school administrators and politicans are continually trying to lower the grade level in which these things are taught. I’m told Barack Obama wants to make kindergarten the grade in which sexual activity is taught.

Understand that when homosexual “marriage” is legalized it will be legally mandatory to add homosexual sexual teaching into the existing sexual teaching so as not to “discriminate”. That means whatever grade human sexuality is taught, that age of child will be indoctrinated into that teaching.

Make no mistake—IT WILL BE ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO NOT TEACH YOUR KINDERGARTENER ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX.

Think for a moment about the far-reaching consequences of this nation’s five-year-olds learning homosexual sex.

In NC, here is the competency goal in health education related to sexuality for 4th grade, per the NC scope and sequence
ncpublicschools.org/docs/curriculum/healthfulliving/scos/2006healthfullivingscos.pdf (pp 37-38)

“COMPETENCY GOAL 2: The learner will develop knowledge and skills to enhance
personal and consumer health.
Objectives
2.01 Identify problems associated with and measures to control common childhood diseases or conditions such as asthma, allergies, diabetes, and epilepsy.
2.02 Identify the basic components and functions of the respiratory system.
2.03 Identify the basic components and functions of the immune system.
2.04 Summarize methods for preventing the spread of germs that cause communicable diseases.
2.05 Summarize patterns of normal physical and emotional development during puberty.
2.06 Advocate that it is safe to be a friend of someone who has a disease or health condition (e.g. HIV positive, asthma, or epilepsy).
2.07 Identify personal protection equipment needed for sports and recreational activities.
2.08 Acquire skills for providing first aid for choking victims, including demonstrating the Heimlich maneuver.
2.09 Critique and dispel myths about Sun Protective Factor (SPF) and sunscreen (e.g. Low SPF allows for a “safe” tan; waterproof sunscreen does not have to be reapplied; only individuals with fair complexions need to apply sunscreen, sunscreen is only needed at the beach, you only need a high SPF on an Ozone Alert -code orange day).
2.10 Analyze techniques used in advertising health related products and services.”

You know, I don’t see anything about discussions of “examples of all sexual activity engaged in between a man and woman” on that list. I doubt that the textbook for this is the Joy of Sex or the Kama Sutra, as your statement implies. If you can link me to an actual example of a 4th grade curriculum used by a public school currently or state scope and sequence that does actually include such examples, I would like to see it (edstandards.org/StSu/Health.html will give you links to start for scope and sequence). I have grave doubts that anyone’s 4th grader is given a primer on how to engage in heterosexual sexual activity, particularly the more “creative” kinds of activity.

I have heard absolutely no one else claiming that the public schools are teaching techniques and examples of sexual activity, even about heterosexual relationships. If schools were indeed using “examples of all sexual activity engaged in between a man and a woman” I would imagine that everyone and their neighbor would have heard about it by now, particularly where I live, because there’s nothing that a homosexual couple does that some heterosexual couples do not also do in terms of actions, it’s just the players’ gender that might change. If it is at all physically possible (with or without supplemental equipment), I guarantee you that there are heterosexual couples who do it. “All sexual activity engaged in by a man and a woman” encompasses an extremely wide range of activities, not just that approved by the Church.

 

[brianwalden]

What I’m saying is that you – and, by extension, everyone else – have no right to enforce your religious beliefs on the nature of anything on all of us.

So, what you’re really saying is you have the right to enforce your religious beliefs on everyone else and we have no right to do anything about it. Your argument is self defeating - you’re doing exactly what you forbid others to do. By your own logic you have no right to enforce your opinions about the extent to which people are allowed to express their personal beliefs, or the nature or marriage, or anything else, on all of us.

You don’t seem to want to debate the reason we gave the OP for making such a big deal against gay marriage. You just want to prevent us from being able to say it. Go ahead and disagree with me and try to change marriage all you want, but don’t say I don’t have the right to speak when I think you’re wrong or to work to keep marriage from being redefined.

If your religious beliefs and fear of hell are all that’s keeping you from stealing, murdering, and raping, I am very, very afraid. I need no fear of eternal consequences to know that these actions are wrong; it’s easy to see they directly harm others.

I never said it’s fear from the eternal consequences of hell that keep me from stealing and murdering, but thanks for the way you so charitably put words in my mouth. If you would like to know, the main reason I think they’re wrong because of my belief in the inherent dignity of all people. As far as I know this hasn’t been defined scientifically and I don’t know if it ever can be. It falls under religion, or at least philosophy (I assume you impose the same prohibition against imposing personal philosophical beliefs on others).

You say it’s wrong to perform actions that directly harm others. I agree with you. But what non-religious/-philosophical/-moral reasons do you have for believing that its wrong to harm others? If your reasons don’t fall outside those categories then, using your reasoning from above, what gives you the right to impose on others your personal belief that it’s wrong to harm people?

This argument holds absolutely no water with anyone who does not accept your definition of God. Like me. I’ve heard the whole natural law thing before, it’s baloney, please spare me.

Mirdath’s argument holds absolutely no water with anyone who doesn’t accept Mirdath’s definition of God. I’ve heard the whole relativism thing before, it’s baloney, please spare me. Round and round we go. Either there are absolute truths in the world and we can debate what they are or it’s to each his own - in which case you have no grounds for calling us wrong.

Double baloney. Objective, absolute morality in no way requires religious belief. Read your Kant. Heck, read your bible and try to look for a mention of God in the Golden Rule.

So you believe objective, absolute morality exists. Yet you don’t believe that people have a right to try to model society after what they believe that absolute morality to be. I’m confused. I apologize for not being able to follow your logic, but please explain how this is not a contradiction.

On a tangent, the Golden Rule is part of scripture. All scripture mentions God. Specifically, there’s the Christian belief that love of neighbor is derived from love of God. But, yes, you’re correct. If you pull the Golden Rule completely out of the context of scripture it doesn’t specifically mention God. What’s your point? Or maybe a better question to ask is why is the Golden Rule right and a philosophy like, say, Machiavelli’s ends justifying the means wrong?

And what is ‘secularism’ anyway?

I’ll let Bishopite speak for himself as to what he meant when he used the word, but here’s a little background information: newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm