Gay marriage : who cares?

[Seeker2010]

Polyamory being proposed in Canada right now:

So what? I have no objection to polyamory, as it cannot possibly cause harm to anyone outside of the relationship, and traditional MF-only marriage has caused it’s share of harm in a similar fashion.

I’m less likely to support incestuous marriage, due to the risk to potential children, but have heard (but not necessarily from authoritative sources) that it really is trivial. IF that is true, for the same reason, I cannot object.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Nope. I’m just pointing out that the Bible says a lot of things, and Christians don’t take them all seriously. Why should we take it seriously on homosexuality when we recognize that we have vastly different views on gender roles in general today and not just on same sex attraction? We spare the rod, we don’t think it is okay to have slaves, we don’t think that women are subservient to their husbands. We even wear clothes with two different kinds of fabric.

The bible is the Word of God and is always taken seriously. People sometimes get into trouble when they fail to take it literally. As Catholics we don’t believe in private interpretation.

Vastly different views on gender role don’t change Truth. It’s not decided by consensus. It just is and if we are blessed (or lucky) we may discover it.

You say we don’t think it’s okay to have slaves. That may be true in many countries but it isn’t true in some. And it isn’t always true in the U.S. where children and young women are often kidnapped and forced to become sex slaves.

The same can be said for sparing the rod. Even in the U.S. many, many people don’t spare the rod. And in other countries it’s even worse. Though not speaking about children, women in many countries are horribly tortured over the most minor things (things which would be accepted in the U.S. as perfectly normal behavior, at least by most people). The story of Aisha, for example, who had her nose and ears cut off for daring to flee her abusive in-laws, demonstrates the cruelty that is still going on in this world.

asmainegoes.com/content/religion-peace-cuts-womans-nose-and-ears

article.wn.com/view/2010/08/05/Afghan_woman_whose_nose_ears_cut_off_travels_to_US/

And, of course, the above story (which is not an isolated occurrence) shows that women do have to be subservient to their husbands in some countries. Many feel that women should be subservient to their husbands in the U.S.

To me, it’s not so much scripture but the teachings of the Church about homosexuality that are important. And as I have stated before, I am having problems understanding exactly why homosexual activity is wrong.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Yes, Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. So we must all pay our taxes even if they are collected by evil men for evil purposes, but Caesar did not have public schools. He did not have anti-discrimination policies and he did not have a child protective service agency. This is not to say that we should not have those things (that’s another question for another time). What I’m getting at is that today’s government is involved in far more aspects of our lives than in Jesus’ time. It is involved in how we educate our children, in how we conduct our businesses, and in how we raise our families. Its policies should therefore concern us very much more. We can no longer just pay our taxes so that the emperor lets us be to live our lives for Christ when that emperor is saying how, where, and when we might be allowed to live that life.

You are seriously downplaying the involvement the Roman government had in peoples lives. The Jews were occupied by the Romans at that time and faced plenty of oppression. These people didn’t have options of free speech, and if a Religion was seen a weak enough to break the Roman government would often attempt to break it since they viewed such organization as a danger. It was only a matter of years after Christ’s death that Christian started facing massive oppression by the Roman government, and even without his prophetic powers Jesus could have almost certainly foreseen that this would be the case for those that chose to follow him. Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have any political involvement or influence, I am simply saying that even if our government is doing terrible things we are still obligated to follow the laws that don’t conflict with Christian teachings such as the paying of taxes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

I*'m less likely to support incestuous marriage, due to the risk to potential children, but have heard (but not necessarily from authoritative sources) that it really is trivial. IF that is true, for the same reason, I cannot object. *

So do you support homosexual sex because the evidence for AIDS is trivial?

Whew!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Little Soldier

*To me, it’s not so much scripture but the teachings of the Church about homosexuality that are important. And as I have stated before, I am having problems understanding exactly why homosexual activity is wrong. *

The reasons have been stated several times in this thread. If you don’t get it by now, I think you don’t want to get it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

So what? I have no objection to polyamory, as it cannot possibly cause harm to anyone outside of the relationship, and traditional MF-only marriage has caused it’s share of harm in a similar fashion.

So I take it you wouldn’t object to being one of several husbands of the same woman?

 

[PatrickSebast]

I completely agree with the original point made in this topic that we are either obligated to publicly oppose many aspects of current civil marriage, or unable to do so due to hypocrisy. The fact that the legal decision by Judge walker on the issue cited the changes in marriage culture through things like the divorce laws mentioned are all the evidence one should need to show that we dropped the ball on “preserving the sanctity of marriage” years ago. Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has said that marriage has already been redefined significantly and that he doesn’t see much in the way of a legal or civil argument for “preserving marriage.” It bewilders me that our inaction in attempting to preserve other aspects of civil marriage has been used as one of the main points in legal cases yet Christians from all denominations still choose to dance around the issue. If you want to fight for the sanctity of marriage then fight for it on all fronts, don’t just sit around trying to preserve the status quo.

Personally I would rather just see the world marriage removed entirely from civil documents and have anyone who wants the legal benefits getting civil unions. Placing marriage in the realm of being an entirely religious matter is the only effective means left I can see for preserving the sacrament as something God given. I honestly don’t think there is anything left to save in the civil institution of marriage, especially when we are simply trying to combat one additional tendril of corruption rather than attacking the whole of the offending parasite.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sexual activity with someone other than your spouse when all involved are fully consenting is not adultery.

It is adultery.

Definitions of adultery:
[1) Extramarital sex: voluntary sexual relations between a married person and somebody other than his or her spouse.

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+adultery&FORM=DTPDIA&qpvt=definition+of+adultery

(2) Sexual intercourse between a married person and a third party.

divorcesupport.about.com/od/legaltermsac/g/Adultery_def.htm

(3) Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

thefreedictionary.com/adultery

And just because it would be a problem for your wife and children does not mean it is a problem for others. I can assure you from personal experience that it is not.

It is a problem. Perhaps you can’t see all the ramifications from the cheapening of the marital covenant. It’s another slide down the slippery slope. It weakens the family unit and society, it shows disrespect for one’s spouse (even if he/she gives permission) and children (who may very well grow up thinking that it is perfectly OK to commit adultery but in their cases it is a direct cause of their families falling apart). One cannot have a totally committed relationship and commit adultery. So it most likely becomes just a way to have sexual relations in a different, more thrilling way without the obligations of commitment.

Acceptance of adultery on a societal level leads to less respect for women and men. A man who has sexual relationships with women who are not his spouse is not giving dignity to those women, even if they aren’t consciously aware of it. He is hurting himself, even if he is not consciously aware of it. He is taking a gift that should be given only to his spouse and presenting it to another woman. He is taking time that should be spent with his spouse and spending it with another woman. He is not allowing himself to be totally committed to one woman, always, for life and that is missing out on something incredibly awesome.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I completely agree with the original point made in this topic that we are either obligated to publicly oppose many aspects of current civil marriage, or unable to do so due to hypocrisy. The fact that the legal decision by Judge walker on the issue cited the changes in marriage culture through things like the divorce laws mentioned are all the evidence one should need to show that we dropped the ball on “preserving the sanctity of marriage” years ago. Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has said that marriage has already been redefined significantly and that he doesn’t see much in the way of a legal or civil argument for “preserving marriage.” It bewilders me that our inaction in attempting to preserve other aspects of civil marriage has been used as one of the main points in legal cases yet Christians from all denominations still choose to dance around the issue. If you want to fight for the sanctity of marriage then fight for it on all fronts, don’t just sit around trying to preserve the status quo.
**
Personally I would rather just see the world marriage removed entirely from civil documents and have anyone who wants the legal benefits getting civil unions. Placing marriage in the realm of being an entirely religious matter is the only effective means left I can see for preserving the sacrament as something God given. I honestly don’t think there is anything left to save in the civil institution of marriage, especially when we are simply trying to combat one additional tendril of corruption rather than attacking the whole of the offending parasite.**

[bolding added]

Patrick, this is a very interesting post and your “solution” may indeed be the only viable one. It certainly gives me something to think about. (I bolded the part that is most interesting to me.)

Thank you!!

 

[PatrickSebast]

Little Soldier

*To me, it’s not so much scripture but the teachings of the Church about homosexuality that are important. And as I have stated before, I am having problems understanding exactly why homosexual activity is wrong. *

The reasons have been stated several times in this thread. If you don’t get it by now, I think you don’t want to get it.

There has not at all been a consistent statement in this thread. Lots of people use completely invalid arguments like “Homosexuals have more instances of Aids.” Like a bad situation is somehow evidence of being in the wrong. When a good number of explanations are quite simply terrible and wreak of an effort to blindly condemn what they don’t agree with It is no wonder that someone would fail to understand.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little Soldier

*To me, it’s not so much scripture but the teachings of the Church about homosexuality that are important. And as I have stated before, I am having problems understanding exactly why homosexual activity is wrong. *

The reasons have been stated several times in this thread. If you don’t get it by now, I think you don’t want to get it.

I do want to “get it.” Do you honestly expect me to read reasons in a short thread like this and suddenly I understand perfectly and there is no moral dilemma and I have an epiphany and that’s it? BOOM!! - I understand why homosexuality is wrong (or right)!! Why, this thread is so great that it just made everything so clear!! How could I have been so blind?

Let’s send this thread to all the schools in the country and to everyone we can - through the Internet, snail mail, fax. Let’s put the thread on TV and youtube. Let’s see if we can find some carrier pigeons and send the thread that way. Let’s send it by telegraph, bring back the Pony Express, send it by planes, trains, and automobiles!! People will see it and be convinced, just like me! Then it will pass like wildfire via word of mouth, and within two weeks everyone in the world will agree on gay marriage!!

Disclaimer: The above is sarcasm.

P.S. Do you know how to use the function? Most people here put the post they are responding to in a quote and then respond. It makes the original post stand out and the response is obviously separate from the original post. It’s difficult for me to read posts presented as you present yours. It’s just a suggestion. Some people on CAF have brain damage or are otherwise ill and it helps us find responses to our posts. Thanks.

 

[ERose]

You stated that our consensual lack of physical monogamy in our relationship meant we were not committed to each other. This is not only not true, it offended me. What I meant was you have no experience with relationships that include consensual non-monogamy (which, in fairness, is an assumption on my part, but one I believe is accurate) therefore you cannot possibly know and understand that it is perfectly compatible with a real commitment.

So what is the benefit of your type of relationship, in your opinion? How does it improve over the standard monogamous relationship?

No anger, though I find the church to be extremely arrogant. WE have THE answers and anything that we say is wrong, is wrong. I say they spend WAY to much time worrying about what the rest of us are doing with our genitals whilst simultaneously sweeping their own ‘genital behavior problem’ under the rug. I find it amazing hypocritical.

When has a church official entered into your house to mandate how you are to have sex? When? What the church teaches is how to get to heaven. That is it. Whether you take its advice or not is completely up to you. Not it. It cannot force you to do anything. It just outlines the path of salvation to those who want it. If you don’t want it, then don’t take it. Do whatever you want.

Secondly sweeping what under the rug? The sex-abuse scandals? As far as I can tell they are hitting it head on. They are not denying anything. The Pope is meeting with sex-abuse victims and publically apologizing to them for the actions of these gay priests. They are working on it. The Church possesses wolves in sheeps clothing we know that. Even Christ warned us of them before He ascended into heaven.

Also what do you expect them to do if they have no real proof. We keep forgetting that these predators for the most part were not found guilty by secular authorities in most cases and when they were found guilty they were sent to jail and lost their priesthood. Those that did not go to jail it was because there was not enough evidence to prosecute them. If there isn’t enough evidence for the secular authorities to prosecute these predators, how can the church prosecute them?

You guys are hypocrites. What if someone went to your boss at work (when you had a job) and told them that you were molesting their child and your boss fires you straight up. Even though it was determined later that you didn’t molest this child? How would you feel about that. Would your boss have been justified?

Of course I have. I’m human, and none amongst us is perfect. I believe in God, but not the God the church represents. That’s a mean, spiteful, vicious, jealous little creature, and the actions and threats associated with that version of God are not those of a loving creator.

So you worship a God you made up in your image no doubt. Let us see how far an imaginary God that was made up in your little mind gets you. You would be better off being an atheist.

While what you said offended me, I am no now (nor was I when I first read it) angry with you. I am very, very slow to anger, it’s extremely unlikely you could do so on a semi-anonymous message board like this, unless you really tried. And then you’d know, in no uncertain terms, that I was angry.

Well we will see.

 

[ERose]

I completely agree with the original point made in this topic that we are either obligated to publicly oppose many aspects of current civil marriage, or unable to do so due to hypocrisy. The fact that the legal decision by Judge walker on the issue cited the changes in marriage culture through things like the divorce laws mentioned are all the evidence one should need to show that we dropped the ball on “preserving the sanctity of marriage” years ago. Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has said that marriage has already been redefined significantly and that he doesn’t see much in the way of a legal or civil argument for “preserving marriage.” It bewilders me that our inaction in attempting to preserve other aspects of civil marriage has been used as one of the main points in legal cases yet Christians from all denominations still choose to dance around the issue. If you want to fight for the sanctity of marriage then fight for it on all fronts, don’t just sit around trying to preserve the status quo.

Personally I would rather just see the world marriage removed entirely from civil documents and have anyone who wants the legal benefits getting civil unions. Placing marriage in the realm of being an entirely religious matter is the only effective means left I can see for preserving the sacrament as something God given. I honestly don’t think there is anything left to save in the civil institution of marriage, especially when we are simply trying to combat one additional tendril of corruption rather than attacking the whole of the offending parasite.

To a certain point I do agree with you. But I say that we fight to get the sanctity back and not just give it up. I think that there has been some headway. I seems like from the statistics that the divorce and adultery trends are reversing some. So something is working out there. The big thing we need to prepare our children better out there. We need to get out of their minds this myth in “love at first sight” and call it what it is: lust. We need to teach them that love is something that you have to work at and not something that comes naturally. That a solid relationship must be constantly worked at and built upon. When you stop working then you are not going to make it.

We also need to stop the message that sex is the almighty God and if you are not having sex in one form or another something is wrong with you. We need to teach chastity to this world, but I think it starts with us Christians. We must be the example. If we stop acting like animals and start acting like what God calls us to be Godlike.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PatrickSebast

There has not at all been a consistent statement in this thread. Lots of people use completely invalid arguments like “Homosexuals have more instances of Aids.” Like a bad situation is somehow evidence of being in the wrong.

So a bad situation is evidence of being in the right?

 

[Seeker2010]

So do you support homosexual sex because the evidence for AIDS is trivial?

I support the idea that people can have risky sex if they choose to do it. Unprotected anal intercourse is probably the riskiest sex act a human is capable of doing. That said AIDS is not trivial.

Whether or not the risk of genetic problems for incestuous relationships is trivial I cannot say categorically, but I’m told it is. If you have information to the contrary, let’s hear it.

 

[ERose]

I support the idea that people can have risky sex if they choose to do it. Unprotected anal intercourse is probably the riskiest sex act a human is capable of doing. That said AIDS is not trivial.

Whether or not the risk of genetic problems for incestuous relationships is trivial I cannot say categorically, but I’m told it is. If you have information to the contrary, let’s hear it.

Then we just allow same-sex incest and not opposite-sex incest I guess, once we as a society fall completely off the cliff.

 

[Seeker2010]

So I take it you wouldn’t object to being one of several husbands of the same woman?

Though we are not seeking a polyamorous relationship of any flavor, I have no philosophical objection if one happens to find us. Of any flavor.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

That’s a mean, spiteful, vicious, jealous little creature, and the actions and threats associated with that version of God are not those of a loving creator.

A loving creator God looks out for his children. He teaches them truths, not lies. He gives them a nature to accomplish certain things, not a sexual organ that is to be used in a bestial manner. It is not God who is mean and spiteful toward men. It is men who are mean and spiteful toward God, defiling his gifts every which way.

 

[Seeker2010]

So what is the benefit of your type of relationship, in your opinion? How does it improve over the standard monogamous relationship?

I am running out the door to a business meeting, but you have asked an interesting question here that I will answer later. For there are many benefits, though it’s most certainly not something for everyone, and I don’t want anything I say to ever be interpreted as advocating that it is.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ERose

*Then we just allow same-sex incest and not opposite-sex incest I guess, once we as a society fall completely off the cliff. *

Or fathers could marry their sons, and mothers could marry their daughters.

Sounds like free fall to me.