"gay" marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter yiannii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yiannii

Guest
Hello all,

I don’t post often but I do, from time to time, pop in and see how things are going on this cool site.

I am in the middle of a debate with some homosexual friends regarding gay marriage. I know that I have made my points clear, and seeing they are not practicing Catholics/Christians etc I have tried to keep the argument as far away from religion as possible.

In the last reply to my post someone posted this link: theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567 .

I was wondering if any of you Catholic apologists out there could read the article and give me an honest opinion on it; your queries, any lies in the article etc. Thanks in advance for helping me defend the truth.

Yiannii~
 
Pardon this slight digression:

Massachusetts voters and our representatives in the State House all voted against Gay Marriage, only to have six non-elected members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturning the vote and allowing homosexuals to marry against the will of the people. Now we have to wait until 2006 for the referendum for the voters to vote again and overturn the court decision.

The issue that came out was that it isn’t the court’s pervue to determine what constitutes a marriage! That was a major issue for all the anti-homosexual marriage protests in Massachusetts over the past two years!

What two homosexuals do on their own time is nobody’s business (and anybody’s guess), but voters started to protest the courts defining a marriage. It is the priest (or Rabbi or minister, etc.) that makes the marriage, not the judicial system!

I’ve never been married, but a marriage license means nothing to me. My girlfriend and I can go out and purchase a marriage license at city hall and walk around all day with the thing, but that doesn’t mean we’re married!

So besides the actual absurdity of same sex marriages; the recognition of the court system determining a marriage also became a issue of protest.

As a staunch and conservative Catholic, no Priest = no marriage!
 
Kevin Walker:
Pardon this slight digression:

Massachusetts voters and our representatives in the State House all voted against Gay Marriage, only to have six non-elected members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturning the vote and allowing homosexuals to marry against the will of the people. Now we have to wait until 2006 for the referendum for the voters to vote again and overturn the court decision.

The issue that came out was that it isn’t the court’s pervue to determine what constitutes a marriage! That was a major issue for all the anti-homosexual marriage protests in Massachusetts over the past two years!

What two homosexuals do on their own time is nobody’s business (and anybody’s guess), but voters started to protest the courts defining a marriage. It is the priest (or Rabbi or minister, etc.) that makes the marriage, not the judicial system!

I’ve never been married, but a marriage license means nothing to me. My girlfriend and I can go out and purchase a marriage license at city hall and walk around all day with the thing, but that doesn’t mean we’re married!

So besides the actual absurdity of same sex marriages; the recognition of the court system determining a marriage also became a issue of protest.

As a staunch and conservative Catholic, no Priest = no marriage!
Click to expand...
My understanding is that if it the intention of you and your girl to be married, that you are. The role os the priest is as a witness to your fformal declaration of that intention. Two men cannot declare such an intention, because they cannot marry in the same way that that man and woman can. That is because the fundamental purpose of marriage is not companionship, or a sharing of property but the bearing of children. That is the natural order of things.
 
40.png
yiannii:
Hello all,

I don’t post often but I do, from time to time, pop in and see how things are going on this cool site.

I am in the middle of a debate with some homosexual friends regarding gay marriage. I know that I have made my points clear, and seeing they are not practicing Catholics/Christians etc I have tried to keep the argument as far away from religion as possible.

In the last reply to my post someone posted this link: theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567 .

I was wondering if any of you Catholic apologists out there could read the article and give me an honest opinion on it; your queries, any lies in the article etc. Thanks in advance for helping me defend the truth.

Yiannii~
Click to expand...
The article is full of wholes and full of assumptions with no bearing whatsoever. It was made to be used by homosexual activists to challenge the natural order.

Marriage is one man and one women. period. That’s what it IS. What the homosexual activists propose is a lie.

Biology is a dictate on what marriage is. Marriage is for children and children are the natural propogation of 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.

You will notice that your homosexual activist friends will praise the fascist actions of judges working against the will of the peopel and the governement and then decry when the population vote accordingly against a lie. This is due to their disordered sexual appetites and the narcissism that is inevitable with such a condition.

There are a lot of arguments against the pro-homosexual lobby but the truth is they don’t want something created…they want marriage to be destroyed and by the force of law their lifestyle and disordered sexual appetites promoted. The reason is they know something’s wrong. They know they are caught in a life but they cannot see it. Call in concumpiscience…call it due to the fall.
 
40.png
yiannii:
Hello all,

I don’t post often but I do, from time to time, pop in and see how things are going on this cool site.

I am in the middle of a debate with some homosexual friends regarding gay marriage. I know that I have made my points clear, and seeing they are not practicing Catholics/Christians etc I have tried to keep the argument as far away from religion as possible.

In the last reply to my post someone posted this link: theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567 .

I was wondering if any of you Catholic apologists out there could read the article and give me an honest opinion on it; your queries, any lies in the article etc. Thanks in advance for helping me defend the truth.

Yiannii~
Click to expand...
Yiannii
The truth is that the government should not have any authority to grant marriage as it is not meant to be a civil institution. Marriage is a religious institution. Government marriages mean that they have the authority over the marriage in matters of money, what constitutes a marriage, who you can be married to, and when it can start, end. What good does it do a man or woman to have a marriage backed by the government? The government is here to protect the marriage and the family with national defense and secure borders, not to declare marriages or to void them…no marriage is historically a religious (spiritual) institution.
 
40.png
RobbyS:
My understanding is that if it the intention of you and your girl to be married, that you are. The role os the priest is as a witness to your fformal declaration of that intention. Two men cannot declare such an intention, because they cannot marry in the same way that that man and woman can. That is because the fundamental purpose of marriage is not companionship, or a sharing of property but the bearing of children. That is the natural order of things.
Click to expand...
Also, the primary purpose(s) of Marriage are:
-To bring the spouse to Salvation (through Jesus Christ) by supporting and nurturing them in the Catholic faith. Though the spouse may not be Catholic, it is the married person’s duty to be their “teacher” even if not accepted by the spouse. (This DUTY is often not mentioned).
-Procreation
-Love
 
Several posters showed (probably even without intention) where the real problem is:

The mixing of sacramental marriage with a legally recognized civil union of two people.

Over here in Europe most countries differ between both, for example in Germany you “marry” twice, once at the town hall for the civil union, later (often the next day) at the church for the sacrament.

Of course non believers leave the church part away, and of course if you take only the sacrament and leave the town hall away you are entitled to no benefits from the state whatsoever, because for the state you aren’t married.

That makes it easy to introduce gay civil unions without touching sacramental marriage.

In the US where the sacraments at the same time makes the civil union you have a real problem.

What you should do is to separate the sacrament from the civil union and giv God what is God’s (the sacrament) and the state what is the state’s (civil union)

It is never a good thing to mix God’s blessing with legal titles.

Werner
 
40.png
Werner:
What you should do is to separate the sacrament from the civil union and give God what is God’s (the sacrament) and the state what is the state’s (civil union)
Click to expand...
That’s OK, but then you still have the problem of deciding whether it is a good or necessary thing for the state to confer special benefits on either marriages or civil unions.

Historically, the State has granted particular benefits to married couples because marriage and the raising of children was seen as good for society, and to be encouraged. Are unions of homosexuals–whether we call them marriage or civil unions–equally beneficial to society? Or are they harmful?
 
40.png
Werner:
Several posters showed (probably even without intention) where the real problem is:

The mixing of sacramental marriage with a legally recognized civil union of two people.

Over here in Europe most countries differ between both, for example in Germany you “marry” twice, once at the town hall for the civil union, later (often the next day) at the church for the sacrament.

Of course non believers leave the church part away, and of course if you take only the sacrament and leave the town hall away you are entitled to no benefits from the state whatsoever, because for the state you aren’t married.

That makes it easy to introduce gay civil unions without touching sacramental marriage.

In the US where the sacraments at the same time makes the civil union you have a real problem.

What you should do is to separate the sacrament from the civil union and giv God what is God’s (the sacrament) and the state what is the state’s (civil union)

It is never a good thing to mix God’s blessing with legal titles.

Werner
Click to expand...
Really, we shouldn’t be forced into that situation. The role of the government is to protect the common good. Recognition of any unions that are contradictory to sacramental marriage (e.g., same sex unions) are contrary to the common good. Bifurcating civil and sacramental unions would only be for the purpose of allowing the government to recognize civil unions that are contrary to the common good. We shouldn’t allow our government to do that!
 
40.png
atsheeran:
Really, we shouldn’t be forced into that situation. The role of the government is to protect the common good. Recognition of any unions that are contradictory to sacramental marriage (e.g., same sex unions) are contrary to the common good. Bifurcating civil and sacramental unions would only be for the purpose of allowing the government to recognize civil unions that are contrary to the common good. We shouldn’t allow our government to do that!
Click to expand...
In the following article on contraception we discuss this issue.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38039
Do you consider homosexuality a form of contraception?
 
40.png
Beaver:
In the following article on contraception we discuss this issue.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38039
Do you consider homosexuality a form of contraception?
Click to expand...
I think homosexuality and contraception are both disordered, however I do not think of homosexuality as a form of contraception. They are similar, but one is not a subcategory of the other. Contraception involves deliberately rendering sterile/non-procreative an otherwise potentially procreative act. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, is inherently non-procreative.
 
Werner,

Having read some of your other posts, I want you to know that I am not one that sees a problem with homosexuality and yet at the same time ignores all other sins.

To elaborate on what I posted before, I think that it is a problem when the government recognizes any unions that are contrary to the common good. In this category I place not only same sex unions but also heterosexual unions of divorced persons (who have not received a declaration of nullity from the Church).
 
40.png
atsheeran:
I think homosexuality and contraception are both disordered, however I do not think of homosexuality as a form of contraception. They are similar, but one is not a subcategory of the other. Contraception involves deliberately rendering sterile/non-procreative an otherwise potentially procreative act. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, is inherently non-procreative.
Click to expand...
I see homosexual acidentally have sex and there is nothing deliberate about it.
 
Regarding “gay” marriage: memorize this jingle -

Bats aren’t blind;

Owls aren’t wise;

and Homosexuals aren’t Gay!
 
40.png
yiannii:
Hello all,

I don’t post often but I do, from time to time, pop in and see how things are going on this cool site.

I am in the middle of a debate with some homosexual friends regarding gay marriage. I know that I have made my points clear, and seeing they are not practicing Catholics/Christians etc I have tried to keep the argument as far away from religion as possible.

In the last reply to my post someone posted this link: theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567 .

I was wondering if any of you Catholic apologists out there could read the article and give me an honest opinion on it; your queries, any lies in the article etc. Thanks in advance for helping me defend the truth.

Yiannii~
Click to expand...
Where did you find that silly link!?!?
Marriage designed to bind women to men as property?
Obviously written by a disgruntled woman or a man who has never been married

“Marriage is only 4300 years old” my Aunt Fanny!

It is at least a Neolithic innovation
Primitive, isolated hunter gatherer societies had there own marriage traditions went contacted by the outside world

And even though the Church is only 2000 years old it is to blame for the whole thing :rolleyes:

this might be a good place to start

If you want something a little more secular then wikipedia is your friend

Many of the pro gay marriage groups in the US put the argument in 14th amendment terms, equal protection under the law.

This is of course silly

The marriage restrictions apply to everyone
Your partner must be of a certain age, give consent, be competent, not be previously married, not be too closely related, and be of the opposite sex

Those rules apply to everyone
Bob may be upset because he can’t marry Jim but I can’t marry Jim either so we’re both treated equally

Now they could probably argue successfully under 9th or 10th amendment grounds
 
Kevin Walker:
What two homosexuals do on their own time is nobody’s business (and anybody’s guess), but voters started to protest the courts defining a marriage. It is the priest (or Rabbi or minister, etc.) that makes the marriage, not the judicial system!
Click to expand...
Slight correction, that’s how it should be but not how it is. Since marriage is incorporated into legal documents it has to have a legal (i.e. governmental) definition.

The best solution then is to remove marriage entirely from government, allow all partners (of whatever type) to get governmental civil unions and allow each religion to define marriage as it sees fit. No one is discriminated against and government and religion stay out of each other’s way.
 
40.png
Agomemnon:
Biology is a dictate on what marriage is. Marriage is for children and children are the natural propogation of 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.
Click to expand...
Actually, biologically speaking, we’re polyamorous by nature.
 
Sociology and psychology both have studied marriage and the family, and both have ample literature that children are much healthier and better adjusted when raised by two parents, a man and a woman. Because men and women are wired somewhat differently, they both are necessary for raislng a child, be the child male or female. That is a practical, non-religious approach that simply sidesteps the relgious prejudices brought to your conversation. It is rooted in natuaral law, although I don’t know that I would use those terms, as they are too closely identified with religious issues.

It is a fairly simple arguement. that is what works because both the children and the parents are wired to operate as a family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top