Gay marriage : who cares?

[LittleSoldier]

This is something I find so interesting. When you people start loosing the argument which is always the case since the only argument you have is “Why not” and “Who does it hurt” you fall into calling people bigots and hate mongers. If you do not have the ability to produce a valid argument get off of this thread. This stupidity that you are spewing does not help your cause nor does it contribute to the debate except to show that you are ignorant. Ed has not spewed any type of hate speech that I have read. If he has quote it and debunk it. But you are not going to silence us on the this side of this debate by calling us bigots, hatemongers, homophobes, etc.

Oh yeah, start reading the Bible a little more why don’t you. For your Oh yeah argument is completely wrong.

1 Cor 6: 9,10 *Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor **boy prostitutes ***nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1: 8-11 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Rom 1: 25-28 *They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. *

So to answer you, yes it is in the New Testament teaching. So stop trying to silence those with the truth because the truth will set you free.

In Nexttogodliness’ defense I have been insulted over and over ad nauseum by the poster she is referring to and have been constantly frustrated by posts that make no sense and fail to address the subject being discussed.

Also, Nexttogodliness was referring only to that one poster, not to everyone who disagrees with her views. IMO she is fed up, angry, and let that poster know how she felt. And I don’t blame her one bit as I have felt and feel the same way.

I believe the question asked near the beginning of the thread was if Jesus Himself spoke of homosexuality in the NT. And the answer is NO. Yes, it is discussed in the NT, but not by Jesus. If you look at EdWest2’s posts you will see that “no” is the answer he gave, too. Nexttogodliness posted in anger and made a mistake. You could have taken the opportunity to be kind and charitable and provide the NT passages. Instead you threw them in her face.

In your first paragraph you refer to “you people.” Who are these people? People who disagree with your views? And they are always wrong and “fall into calling people hate mongers and bigots”? What are you doing? You are putting everyone who does not agree with you in one category and accusing all of them of always being wrong if they disagree with you and implying they always start calling people hate mongers and bigots. And you tell them to get off the thread. That’s not your place. That’s not your call, and frankly, I was quite surprised to read your post because in my mind you are a nice person.

You’re doing the same thing you complain about Nexttogodliness doing. Isn’t there something in the bible about removing the plank in your own eye before speaking of the splinter in another’s? And isn’t there a second Great Commandment given by Jesus (who actually spoke this time) that tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves?

I think that has been forgotten in this thread and pretty much on this whole forum and CAF as a whole and it makes me very sad. And BTW, I am on your side in this debate although I am questioning my position.

I, too, am leaving this thread because of the pain I am feeling, seeing hatred spewing all around me and pulling me down into it to where I begin to hate, too. I see it coming out and I abhor hate, especially in me. I would rather be dead than hate.

Seeker, I will be honored to discuss non-monogamy in another thread.

Oh, one thing before I leave: ask Ed about plumbers from New Jersey. He mocked them in a thread, quoting them using very bad English and not even knowing how to spell or say “Catholic.” My Dad was a plumber. He was also a Catholic who went to Mass every day after he retired, put four children through college, remained married to my Mom and always loved her, and also had a deep and abiding love for the Virgin Mary. And he knew how to spell and could pronounce “Catholic.” I don’t think you can imagine the hurt I felt from that comment and from others in other posts which were quite similar. There is more - a lot more, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to write a long post with all the threads I have been insulted and hurt in by this one poster.

I wish God’s blessings and love on everyone here.

 

[Seeker2010]

It’s an interesting and important subject and should be discussed.

New thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7090986#post7090986

 

[Seeker2010]

But originally I was agnostic as you are now.

I am not agnostic. I believe in a supernatural creator, God if you will. I just don’t believe the information taught by your (or any other) religion are accurate.

But how does it IMPROVE who you are?

It brings love into my life.

Did you read any of these before you posted them? I did not read the word “Catholic” in any of them. Try again.

In all of the stories, the complaining parties were religious organizations whose offence was grounded in their religious beliefs. I really could find many more, but it would be redundant.

What proof do you have that these people in fact went where they went? Did they bring something or someone back for you as evidence?

Proof? None. But when tens of thousands of people from cultures and religions from across the globe come back and describe similar experiences, that means something. And the overriding message is that LOVE is what matters, all else is fluff.

 

[Leela]

Marriage Equality supporters want the government to do precisely that. To tell the American people that there is a new kind of marriage out there. A form of marriage that did not exist in the history of this country until created by a specific group.

There are always new forms of marriage. Every marriage is unique, and marriages are generally quite different today than they were a hundred years ago.

 

[Leela]

I don’t know about that. One man, one woman.

No question necessary. Marriage ought to be what it is, the union of one man and one woman. No need to invent new definitions for it.
.

I’m not clear on what your definition of marriage is. All I see so far is that marriage equals one man + one woman. Are their no other requirements for what ought to be considered a marriage? Does your definition include that this man and woman live together? have sexual relations? Have children? Love one another? Have a physical attraction for one another? Are there requirements for how this man and this woman relate to one another? Must the man be the bread winner? Must the woman submit to her husband? Must the man “wear the pants” literally and figuritively? Must the woman keep the house?

I think that you’ll find that how ever you try to define what people’s marriages ought to be to rightly be called marriages, that you’ll see that there are lots and lots of mariages that do not include all of these elements. The fact is that gender roles have changed and the institution of marriage itself has changed as well. Whether or not you wanted marriage to change, it already has.

Best,
Leela

 

[dskysmine]

I’m not clear on what your definition of marriage is. All I see so far is that marriage equals one man + one woman. Are their no other requirements for what ought to be considered a marriage? Does your definition include that this man and woman live together? have sexual relations? Have children? Love one another? Have a physical attraction for one another? Are there requirements for how this man and this woman relate to one another? Must the man be the bread winner? Must the woman submit to her husband? Must the man “wear the pants” literally and figuritively? Must the woman keep the house?

I think that you’ll find that how ever you try to define what people’s marriages ought to be to rightly be called marriages, that you’ll see that there are lots and lots of mariages that do not include all of these elements. The fact is that gender roles have changed and the institution of marriage itself has changed as well. Whether or not you wanted marriage to change, it already has.

Best,
Leela

You are making a false dillema… Saying that what men do and women do has changed doesn’t change marriage. It changes how the marriage works, it changes the education on the children but the marriage is still a relationship between the two genders. In over 4000 years of writen history that has not changed. In over 4000 years of writen history marriage has been many things but it never lost the sexual/gender aspect. It has always served that purpose. Marriage is not only friendship and it is not sex but you already know that people can do all those things outside of marriage in our society. Why do you keep forcing us to glorify gay marriage when it doesn’t help anyone or anything?

 

[Leela]

You are making a false dillema… Saying that what men do and women do has changed doesn’t change marriage. It changes how the marriage works,

I completely diagree. Changing how marriage functions as a social institution is changing what marriage is. There is no daylight between what marriage is and how a marriage functions in society. Marriage is obvioulsy different today than it once was. It means something different to be married than it used to mean.

it changes the education on the children but the marriage is still a relationship between the two genders. In over 4000 years of writen history that has not changed. In over 4000 years of writen history marriage has been many things but it never lost the sexual/gender aspect. It has always served that purpose. Marriage is not only friendship and it is not sex but you already know that people can do all those things outside of marriage in our society. Why do you keep forcing us to glorify gay marriage when it doesn’t help anyone or anything?

So there is no particular way that a marriage must be so long as it has one man and one woman? There is nothing whatsoever essential to what a marriage is besides the gender of the participants??? That sounds completely arbitrary to me and completely uninformative about what a marriage is in this day and age or at any time in the past.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You are making a false dillema… Saying that what men do and women do has changed doesn’t change marriage. It changes how the marriage works, it changes the education on the children but the marriage is still a relationship between the two genders. In over 4000 years of writen history that has not changed. In over 4000 years of writen history marriage has been many things but it never lost the sexual/gender aspect. It has always served that purpose. Marriage is not only friendship and it is not sex but you already know that people can do all those things outside of marriage in our society. Why do you keep forcing us to glorify gay marriage when it doesn’t help anyone or anything?

Thank you for a great answer!

As you indicated, marriage has not really changed. It is still the union of one man and one woman, even if that one man and one woman conduct their lives in different ways than their great grandparents or other ancestors did back in the day. Little details may change, but the basic equation is the same.

 

[Leela]

Thank you for a great answer! Marriage has not really changed all that much, it is still the union of one man and one woman, even if that one man and one woman conduct their lives in a very different way than their great grandparents did back in the day. Little details may change, but the basic equation is the same.

So the only think essential to marriage is one woman plus one man???

 

[SwizzleStick]

So the only think essential to marriage is one woman plus one man???

It is the union of one woman and one man and all that that relationship entails. That is from a secular veiwpoint. For me, as a Catholic, it is also a sacrament and a covenant. But, the basics remain the same: the union of one man and one woman.

 

[Leela]

It is the union of one woman and one man.

That’s it? Really?

How can I recognize when there is a “union of one woman and one man” rather than just any old couple consisting of “one woman and one man”?

I ask because I suspect that there is more to marriage than just a pair of people of opposite gender and that this conception of “more” has evolved over time as gender roles have changed and means different things to different people.

 

[SwizzleStick]

That’s it? Really?

How can I recognize when there is a “union of one woman and one man” rather than just any old couple consisting of “one woman and one man”?

I ask because I suspect that there is more to marriage than just a pair of people of opposite gender and that this conception of “more” has evolved over time as gender roles have changed and means different things to different people.

I am sorry that I am not articulate enough to express my thoughts well. “Union” means a joining together, to unite the man and woman to become one, to then live life, and accept whatever that brings, as a united couple.

 

[Light1111]

Question to those who know the Bible better than I:

We often hear the quote from the OT (Leviticus?), along the lines of “A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman” (I apologize for the paraphrasing). This is usually the quotation that is cited when one seeks to illustrate that homosexuality is a sin.

I have been told repeatedly that this quotation falls on the very same page as passages that proclaim:

-One may not eat shellfish
-Mixed fabrics may not be worn at one and the same time (e.g. one may not wear cotton on the same day he is wearing wool, leather, etc.)

Certainly it is true that Orthodox Jewish folks follow the “shellfish decree,” if we can call it that, but it is not the case that all those who are quoting this Leviticus passage as proof that homosexuality is a sin, are observing these two “laws” (or edicts).

I don’t suppose it’s all that common, in today’s world, for that “mixed fabrics” clause to be strictly adhered to, whether by Jewish people, or Christians. As far as other laws and edicts in the same section of the OT – I doubt many of them are today upheld except by the most Orthodox of folks.

If the information I have been given is indeed correct, then how can we continuously quote from this passage in Leviticus, knowing full well the passage exists alongside other edicts we for the most part ignore?

And again, it has been pointed out that Jesus did not denounce homosexuality. Given all He did speak out against, and all He did speak in favor of, would we really see Him ignoring this critical topic, if indeed it concerned Him? As our Lord, would He not have had the foresight to know that one day in the future, homosexuality would be debated furiously in circles the world over? Did He not think He ought to weight in on the issue, in case future generations should wish to know His feelings on this topic?

I know I speak outside strict belief in stating this, but I don’t believe in a God who nit-picks tiny little infractions like mixing fabrics. I just don’t. I see having concern for such things as being quite human; it’s hard for me to picture our God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, as concerning Himself with such niggly little points, instead of looking at the total person and what he brings to this earth.

Does one shed more light, or cast more shadows?

My God cares more about that last question than any other, in determining the state of our soul.

I say this with utmost reverence for our God the Father. I simply do not like to see Him relegated to basic, fallible human emotion and thought. I see Him as well above all of this.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but it applies to this thread as well.

"Examining the California Opinion: Top 10 Gay Marriage False ‘facts’

Cross Examined (crossexamined.org/)
Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people.

Having certain sexual desires - whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life - does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker’s false “fact” was a real fact, we’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same-sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too."…

Entire entry: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37841

 

[Leela]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but it applies to this thread as well.

"Examining the California Opinion: Top 10 Gay Marriage False ‘facts’

Cross Examined (crossexamined.org/)
Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people.

What behaviors define marriage?

 

[dskysmine]

What behaviors define marriage?

Leela if you look at human history you will find that marriage was only ever linked with sexual access and/or procreation/child rearing.
There were some men that married so many women that they would only have sex with them 1 or 2 times a year… if any… look at king Solomon: 700 wives and 300 concubines. I mean… dang… How could he have sex and remember the face of any of them is beyond me…
Of course this doesn’t mean that certain marriages couldn’t be more happier than others but the purpose was always the same: uniting the two genders in sex to allow for procreation and legitimacy in children. If you had a child outside of a marriage it was considered a great social stygma. And since they didn’t have DNA they couldn’t really “prove” if some one was the child of some one else without it. Even if you weren’t the son of your “legal father”, if you were the son of your mother while she was married to a man he would legally be your father. etc…

 

[edwest2]

I completely diagree. Changing how marriage functions as a social institution is changing what marriage is. There is no daylight between what marriage is and how a marriage functions in society. Marriage is obvioulsy different today than it once was. It means something different to be married than it used to mean.

So there is no particular way that a marriage must be so long as it has one man and one woman? There is nothing whatsoever essential to what a marriage is besides the gender of the participants??? That sounds completely arbitrary to me and completely uninformative about what a marriage is in this day and age or at any time in the past.

“in this day and age” is a concept built on the calendar myth. Did knowledge or enlightenment pour into anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century? Did you pay bills last year? Ten years ago?

“arbitrary”? Not true. Social norms are established by natural law. Birds build nests, the female sits on the eggs, and since that’s all she can do, the male brings her food. Only a fictional mindset would call that sexist or submissive or something other than what it is - natural law.

Nothing has changed about marriage aside from the imaginations of a handful of Anarchists. Should we walk on our hands? How about the expert who convinced a school board that a child’s self-esteem was so fragile that the winners and losers on a Little League team all got trophies? What? This guy was going to change reality? No. He just confused a bunch of kids and tried to recreate what it meant to live a normal life with normal challenges, normal failures and dealing with those failures – as opposed to getting a trophy.

A truly functional society has social norms about meeting people that are shared by all. A truly functional society regards marriage in a way that is shared by all so that when two total strangers meet, that young man and young woman have a common way to relate to each other that leads to a functional family. And a functional family requires stability, not anarchy. A functional country requires stability, not anarchy.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ERose]

In Nexttogodliness’ defense I have been insulted over and over ad nauseum by the poster she is referring to and have been constantly frustrated by posts that make no sense and fail to address the subject being discussed.

Also, Nexttogodliness was referring only to that one poster, not to everyone who disagrees with her views. IMO she is fed up, angry, and let that poster know how she felt. And I don’t blame her one bit as I have felt and feel the same way.

I believe the question asked near the beginning of the thread was if Jesus Himself spoke of homosexuality in the NT. And the answer is NO. Yes, it is discussed in the NT, but not by Jesus. If you look at EdWest2’s posts you will see that “no” is the answer he gave, too. Nexttogodliness posted in anger and made a mistake. You could have taken the opportunity to be kind and charitable and provide the NT passages. Instead you threw them in her face.

In your first paragraph you refer to “you people.” Who are these people? People who disagree with your views? And they are always wrong and “fall into calling people hate mongers and bigots”? What are you doing? You are putting everyone who does not agree with you in one category and accusing all of them of always being wrong if they disagree with you and implying they always start calling people hate mongers and bigots. And you tell them to get off the thread. That’s not your place. That’s not your call, and frankly, I was quite surprised to read your post because in my mind you are a nice person.

You’re doing the same thing you complain about Nexttogodliness doing. Isn’t there something in the bible about removing the plank in your own eye before speaking of the splinter in another’s? And isn’t there a second Great Commandment given by Jesus (who actually spoke this time) that tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves?

I think that has been forgotten in this thread and pretty much on this whole forum and CAF as a whole and it makes me very sad. And BTW, I am on your side in this debate although I am questioning my position.

I, too, am leaving this thread because of the pain I am feeling, seeing hatred spewing all around me and pulling me down into it to where I begin to hate, too. I see it coming out and I abhor hate, especially in me. I would rather be dead than hate.

Seeker, I will be honored to discuss non-monogamy in another thread.

Oh, one thing before I leave: ask Ed about plumbers from New Jersey. He mocked them in a thread, quoting them using very bad English and not even knowing how to spell or say “Catholic.” My Dad was a plumber. He was also a Catholic who went to Mass every day after he retired, put four children through college, remained married to my Mom and always loved her, and also had a deep and abiding love for the Virgin Mary. And he knew how to spell and could pronounce “Catholic.” I don’t think you can imagine the hurt I felt from that comment and from others in other posts which were quite similar. There is more - a lot more, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to write a long post with all the threads I have been insulted and hurt in by this one poster.

I wish God’s blessings and love on everyone here.

Maybe I pushed too hard on this one so I agree with you. I have dealt with this subject on other threads and quite frankly the pro-gaymarriage side has only expressed one argument for gay-marriage and that is “why not?”. In my opinion, this is not an argument it is a copout. If someone thows out to them legitmate arguments that they cannot argue against they ignore them as if they didn’t exist. When you force them to address them then they start spewing homophobia, hate-speech, etc. Because quite frankly that is all they got.

About 10 pages back I supplied no less than 7 valid arguments against gay marriage that had nothing to do with Christianity. I have used these same arguments on other threads and I have not found one person on the pro-gay-marriage side refute any of them except to call me a bigot.

So when I start seeing people throwing out you are hateful, homophobe or whatever I take offense to it and I will address it. When people start using outright false statements to defend their point of view I will address it. That is the problem for many people on this site. They come here to argue for one point or another without being informed about what they are arguing about. I call them out on it. I want them to think and do some research before they write. If I throw something out there that I cannot substantiate then I deserve the same thing and quite honestly I appreciate people that do this. On other threads, I have thanked those who have argued honestly with me about things I am passionate about because I learn from them and those that read the threads learn from them whether they disagree with them or me. That is the purpose of this forum. To learn. I do not learn and nether does anyone else when the only argument is “why not?”.

Just my opinion.

 

[ERose]

Do you have any references to back up your claims that Catholic schools in Great Britain are forbidden to teach that gay marriage is a sin and the part about “hate crimes” in Canada?

I’m asking because I’m hoping against hope that you are completely wrong.

wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/dc-gay-marriage-law-archdiocese-end-foster-care/

philanthropy.com/blogPost/Catholic-Nonprofit-Group-Loses/26333/

wnd.com/?pageId=150973

It is sad but true what she says.

 

[ERose]

I am not agnostic. I believe in a supernatural creator, God if you will. I just don’t believe the information taught by your (or any other) religion are accurate.

Sorry about the confusion.

It brings love into my life.

What kind of love?

In all of the stories, the complaining parties were religious organizations whose offence was grounded in their religious beliefs. I really could find many more, but it would be redundant.

Not in the first one. And that was not the first assertion you made. You attacked MYchurch so find stories about MY or you have not arguement.

Proof? None. But when tens of thousands of people from cultures and religions from across the globe come back and describe similar experiences, that means something. And the overriding message is that LOVE is what matters, all else is fluff.

I agree that God is Love, but what I am questioning is your concept of love.