Gay marriage : who cares?

[DanteAlighieri]

This conveniently ignores the reality that 99.99% of people who divorce do not remain single or celibate the rest of their lives. Allowing divorce, and most especially remarriage for the divorced, most certainly does change the fundamental nature of marriage from a lifelong comittment to one’s partner (addressed directly by Jesus, BTW), into a lifestyle accessory which may be discarded, at will with the law’s blessing. Many, many tens of millions of people are receiving this “sacrament” via civil law that are not eligible for it. The law we have, that Prop 8 people are turning a blind eye to, institutionalizes and legitimizes behaivor that is inherently sinful in their religion. To pretend that gay marriage is somehow qualitatively different on this basis from what straight people already do en masse is transparently false.

I’m not advocating that divorce and remarriage ought to be allowed; I’m suggesting that they do not do as much harm to the institution of marriage (as a sacrament of the Church) as gay “marriage”. I will not dispute the harm that divorce/remarriage has done; nonetheless, you are mistaken to say that it changes the nature of marriage in the way that gay “marriage” does.

Marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. As I pointed out above, one may divorce without sinning. It is even possible to remarry without sinning in certain circumstances; thus, divorce and remarriage are not, per se, objectively evil. Gay “marriage” is. Period. As such, to give it protection under the law would do egregious harm to society’s understanding of what marriage is while also perpetuating a subculture that celebrates inherently immoral behavior.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Charlemagne_II]

There is a swamp of muck that we are sinking into. First, it became lawful to kill the unborn … by the millions. Now homosexual marriage, an institution never demanded before in history, is loudly advocated. I see what is on the horizon, and I see who will support it. The demand for marriages between brothers and sisters. The homosexuals will support this demand. They have to, because the argument for incestuous marriage will be the same as the argument for homosexual marriage … a civil right!

I’d like to hear an advocate in this forum for homosexual marriage declare his support, or lack of support, for incestuous marriage. And please give a rationale.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dante

As such, to give it protection under the law would do egregious harm to society’s understanding of what marriage is while also perpetuating a subculture that celebrates inherently immoral behavior.

Not to mention open the legal floodgates for homosexual “couples” to adopt children.

 

[Leela]

Not to mention open the legal floodgates for homosexual “couples” to adopt children.

Are all heterosexual parents better than all homosexual parents?

Given that there are so many children who lack loving adoptive homes, are you saying that it is better for a child to have no parents at all than for a child to have parents who love others of the same sex?

WWJD?

 

[ERose]

I hope you’re being sarcastic. That website is a joke. If you’re not…Ed, see what you’ve done with that nonsense! Trust me, the public schools don’t want your kid to be gay. They don’t give a care what your kid is…they just want higher test scores.

Maybe you need to read a little bit more news. I also surfed this website and seen nothing in there that I haven’t seen in the news. This isn’t hate speech it is the facts. Research yourself and become informed before you start making assumptions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

leela

Given that there are so many children who lack loving adoptive homes, are you saying that it is better for a child to have no parents at all than for a child to have parents who love others of the same sex?

There are plenty of heterosexual homes where children to adopt are wanted. There is such a high demand that Americans are adopting children from other countries. This is because we are killing our own unborn children by the millions.

As I recollect, you defend that too.

 

[ERose]

I’m gonna give you ( and everybody ) a scenario: a man and a woman are about to get married . The man regularly beats the woman but the woman does nothing to get out of the relationship, fearing she might be killed if she does. That marriage can take place while a two man, who love eachother more than anything in the world wan’t to get married but can’t b/c they are not man and woman. Does that seem fair ? ( the man and woman scenario is a true story about one of my ( former) friends

One question. What is the purpose and function of the two men getting married?

 

[Leela]

There is a swamp of muck that we are sinking into. First, it became lawful to kill the unborn … by the millions. Now homosexual marriage, an institution never demanded before in history, is loudly advocated. I see what is on the horizon, and I see who will support it. The demand for marriages between brothers and sisters. The homosexuals will support this demand. They have to, because the argument for incestuous marriage will be the same as the argument for homosexual marriage … a civil right!

I’d like to hear an advocate in this forum for homosexual marriage declare his support, or lack of support, for incestuous marriage. And please give a rationale.

What supporters of gay marriage support is the right of adults who have the wherewithal to consent to a marriage to be able to have their marriages recognized by the state (whether or not the churches recognize whatever sorts of relationships is a separate issue.)

The reason that incestuous marriages are forbidden is a matter lack of consent of the participants. Such marriages are too easily forced upon people by their families (or would be if they were legal). It is the same issue with polygamy. Young girls get promised to old men by their families. Anti-polygamy laws prevent that from happening as much as it otherwise would without such laws.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the government does not have the right to enforce laws on the basis of whether or not certain acts seem icky to you. The government has no duty to preserve the “natural order” as you or anyone else sees it. Our government serves the people rather than “nature” (or yours or anyone else’s idiosyncratic view of what is “natural” and “unnatural.”) Perhaps you would prefer a theocracy or a monarchy which has an interest in preserving a so-called “natural” hierarchy of domination of one group (royalty or the priesthood) over another. Unfortunately for you, the US recognizes no such “natural” order of things.

Best,
Leela

 

[LittleSoldier]

There is a swamp of muck that we are sinking into. First, it became lawful to kill the unborn … by the millions. Now homosexual marriage, an institution never demanded before in history, is loudly advocated. I see what is on the horizon, and I see who will support it. The demand for marriages between brothers and sisters. The homosexuals will support this demand. They have to, because the argument for incestuous marriage will be the same as the argument for homosexual marriage … a civil right!

I’d like to hear an advocate in this forum for homosexual marriage declare his support, or lack of support, for incestuous marriage. And please give a rationale.

Ah, you beat me to it!! I was going to post that about incestuous marriage today!!!

 

[Leela]

There are plenty of heterosexual homes where children to adopt are wanted. There is such a high demand that Americans are adopting children from other countries.

We are part of a global community and adoptions frequently cross national boundaries. It is my understanding that there are vast numbers of children in the world who need parents. It would seem that you would deny many of these children the opportunity to have loving parents because you think gays shouldn’t get to be parents.

You never answered my questions (as usual).

1. Are all heterosexual parents better than all homosexual parents?
2. Given that there are so many children who lack loving adoptive homes, are you saying that it is better for a child to have no parents at all than for a child to have parents who love others of the same sex?
3. WWJD?

 

[ERose]

You’re right. We don’t know. Not with even a fraction of the certainty that Prop 8 folks insist they do. We basically have people speaking in God’s voice like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain trying to advance their own agenda as something much grander…

They virtually ignore the one pronouncement about marriage that Jesus DID make, but they’re 100% certain that government needs to enforce sweeping laws against gay marriage based on fourth hand suppositions about what people think Jesus* would have said or meant to say.* And it’s just a happenstance that God meant to say something that justify’s his human interpreter’s very thoughts on the matter…

Lets take the anti-Christian statements out for a moment. Tell me what benefit does same-sex marriage bring to society? What advantages will it bring to the gay men and women who participate in it?

 

[Leela]

One question. What is the purpose and function of the two men getting married?

Gay people cite all the same purposes for their marriages as all the multiple and varied purposes as heterosexual couples cite as the purposes of their marriages such as finally becoming a whole self by uniting with another or having found the other half of their soul or raising a family or creating an economic institution and lots and lots of other purposes. Thankfully, our government does not try to tell us what purposes we ought to have for any of our personal relationships.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Side note, slightly off-topic:

I hope you all realize that if this proposition passes it will never be enacted. All it takes is one judge in one court to shoot it down. And that is what will happen if it passes. Guaranteed.

Back to the thread…

 

[LittleSoldier]

You’re right. We don’t know. Not with even a fraction of the certainty that Prop 8 folks insist they do. We basically have people speaking in God’s voice like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain trying to advance their own agenda as something much grander…

They virtually ignore the one pronouncement about marriage that Jesus DID make, but they’re 100% certain that government needs to enforce sweeping laws against gay marriage based on fourth hand suppositions about what people think Jesus* would have said or meant to say.* And it’s just a happenstance that God meant to say something that justify’s his human interpreter’s very thoughts on the matter…

You are doing the exact same thing you complain that others do. You have made an unfounded assertion and that assertion is that “God meant to say something that justify’s[sic] his[sic] human interpreter’s very thoughts on the matter…”

You don’t know what the human who wrote that document believed. You don’t have a clue. Yet you go right off and assume without any evidence whatsoever. For all you know the person who wrote that document was himself in an active homosexual relationship yet faithfully wrote the truth of God.

 

[Leela]

Lets take the anti-Christian statements out for a moment. Tell me what benefit does same-sex marriage bring to society? What advantages will it bring to the gay men and women who participate in it?

This is the wrong question. The American government does not tell us that we are only free to do things that have a benefit to society as a whole. We are free to do anything so long as it doesn’t harm society. The onus is on the opposition of gay marriage to prove that it is harmful to society.

 

[ERose]

We are part of a global community and adoptions frequently cross national boundaries. It is my understanding that there are vast numbers of children in the world who need parents. It would seem that you would deny many of these children the opportunity to have loving parents because you think gays shouldn’t get to be parents.

You never answered my questions (as usual).

I will answer them for you.

1. Are all heterosexual parents better than all homosexual parents?

This is not the way this question should be asked. Rather do heterosexual parents statistically provide a better environment for the rearing of children than homosexual parents? The answer is yes. Sociologist, who do not have an agenda, have shown that the best environment to raise children is in a stable heterosexual home with both the father and mother there. Children that are raised by same-sex couples are comparable to those that are raised in a divorced family environment.

1. Given that there are so many children who lack loving adoptive homes, are you saying that it is better for a child to have no parents at all than for a child to have parents who love others of the same sex?

The problem with adoption is not finding willing parents, but rather willing parents that have the money necessary to adopt the children. Costs for adopting a child can get up into the $20-30,000 dollar range in many cases. Allowing same-sex couples to adopt children hasn’t corrected this nor has it reduced the number of children in orphanges. You want to get kids out of orphanages, make it less expensive to adopt.

1. WWJD?

He would tell them to Go and Sin no more.

 

[ERose]

This is the wrong question. The American government does not tell us that we are only free to do things that have a benefit to society as a whole. We are free to do anything so long as it doesn’t harm society. The onus is on the opposition of gay marriage to prove that it is harmful to society.

No I disagree. This view point is relatively new and not what this country was founded on. You can ask yourself why polygamy is not allowed. Why in the this country it is illegal to go around naked in public. Why people are not allowed to drive as fast as they want and whatever they want. This list can go on and on. Anyway my point is that my question is legitimate.

 

[ERose]

Gay people cite all the same purposes for their marriages as all the multiple and varied purposes as heterosexual couples cite as the purposes of their marriages such as finally becoming a whole self by uniting with another or having found the other half of their soul or raising a family or creating an economic institution and lots and lots of other purposes. Thankfully, our government does not try to tell us what purposes we ought to have for any of our personal relationships.

Yes I know what the gay people cite. The problem is that they are wrong. Ask yourself why we have the institution of marriage? Why does it even exist?

 

[LittleSoldier]

You’re right. We don’t know. Not with even a fraction of the certainty that Prop 8 folks insist they do. We basically have people speaking in God’s voice like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain trying to advance their own agenda as something much grander…

They virtually ignore the one pronouncement about marriage that Jesus DID make, but they’re 100% certain that government needs to enforce sweeping laws against gay marriage based on fourth hand suppositions about what people think Jesus* would have said or meant to say.* And it’s just a happenstance that God meant to say something that justify’s his human interpreter’s very thoughts on the matter…

Actually, it is nowhere as simple as that. First, as Catholics, we don’t believe in private interpretation of the bible. It is the Church’s place to interpret.

Second, simply because Jesus Himself, as God incarnate said nothing specifically about homosexual activity in the NT does not mean the bible is silent on homosexual activity in the NT. Others here have pointed out what St. Paul had to say and as it is in the bible it is the word of God. The words are from a disciple of Jesus who had been given a message from Jesus when he was persecuting Christians (and therefore Jesus Himself) and his words are truth and accepted by Catholics and also by most Protestants, I believe.

Did you check the ending of the Gospel of John?

Just because something is not in the bible does not mean that it is not important. I listed several reasons why words on homosexuality attributed directly to Jesus are not present in the NT. Now if you want to go only by the words that came out of Jesus’ mouth, then you’ll have to write a new NT and it will be a very short one.

Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura. We base our beliefs on Apostolic tradition, too. And as Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, Catholics must accept Church teaching based on the bible and Apostolic tradition as truth or else believe that Jesus is a liar or fallible.

 

[Leela]

This is not the way this question should be asked. Rather do heterosexual parents statistically provide a better environment for the rearing of children than homosexual parents? The answer is yes. Sociologist, who do not have an agenda, have shown that the best environment to raise children is in a stable heterosexual home with both the father and mother there. Children that are raised by same-sex couples are comparable to those that are raised in a divorced family environment.

Even if that were true it would still be beside the point since adoptions are reviewed on a case by case basis. Certainly some homosexual applicants can be identified as better potential parents than some homosexual applicants. Wouldn’t you agree? Is your argument really statistical, or do you think that all homosexuals are unfit to be parents just as all women are unfit to be priests?