Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melek
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gamewell45 said:
If the Church will not marry a gay couple, that’s fine; they have an unfettered right to tell their members what the conditions must be for marriage in the church. But if a gay couple want a civil marriage, who cares? Doesn’t affect anyone but the married couple, so it should be of no one’s business other then the couple getting married.

Its great to quote passages from the Bible regarding marriage, etc, but remember not everyone believes in God or at least the God we believe in.
Click to expand...
Civilizations depend on natural families to thrive.
 
There are a number of arguments going on here and they touch on a number of subjects, but in essence they are considered out of context.

One is of semantics, we are discussing what marriage means as a definition and also what sex means and what the purpose of sex is.

Secondly we are discussing what role the church plays as far as rule making for marriage and sex.

And thirdly we are discussing the practicality of expending much energy and money to defend “marriage” as it has been traditionally formulated.
1st, I live in a gay marriage. My wife and I have been in a happy and lively marriage for over 30 years. Other people co opting the previous definition of gay do not change my marriage.

Changing the definition of a word doesn’t affect my marriage and homosexual people hooking up in a committed relationship that is somehow codified do not take away anything from my relationship with my wife. If the success of my marriage is predicated on what someone else calls their relationship, then my marriage is in much bigger trouble than that presented by what other people are doing.

Since Baptists baptize their followers differently than Catholics, shouldn’t we be lobbying to get them to refrain from using the term baptism since it means something differently than what Catholics say it is and doesn’t confer upon the baptists the same graces that Catholic baptism confers upon Catholics?

2nd The churches rules on sex and procreation have some holes in them. Obviously there are people who get married who have no chance of having children and so they can never have sex within the constructs of the churches rules. That also eliminates the elderly from getting married and sharing the marriage bed.

We don’t like to discuss it, but there is also a percentage of the population who are born through God’s wisdom with the physical attributes of both sexes. Who do they lie down with?

And the early church’s rules flowed out of the spilling of seed concept, which showed that there was no scientific basis for some of the church’s early rules regarding the role of the two sexes in procreation.

Unfortunately the church’s rules were promulgated in a time when the most common form of birth control was the death of the parents.

3rd. Like it or not the church exists in a world where human rights are expanding for other people who think differently than we may. Fortunately for catholics, the US is one of those countries changing. We are no longer treated like second class citizens in terms of being able to hold political office or persecuted for our beliefs like was common in the south just a few decades ago.

We may not like what gay people do. Is that why we do not want them to be more like us and participate in committed relationships? Or is it because we can take sides without the threat of sacrificing something important to us? Win or lose the argument and nothing really changes for us. It won’t make our marriages stronger or weaker, it won’t make the gays go away. It won’t change how many people are gay. It won’t affect our children unless they are gay. It may make it better for our gay kids, but that isn’t part of the equation as it is being discussed because officially they don’t have to be gay. They just choose to be treated like **** .

So why do we waste our time on the question? Is gay marriage really a problem that needs to be solved ? Might we better serve Jesus by volunteering at an aids clinic or a marriage encounter or a homeless shelter or praying for the victims in Haiti ?

Peace
 
Ed, to sum up the article: The church has nothing to fear from gays or gay marriage.

Unless presently married people are attracted to the obviously less healthy alternatives.

So why put up a big stink? Its not real and not worth the effort.

Peace
 
portarica said:
Ed, to sum up the article: The church has nothing to fear from gays or gay marriage.

Unless presently married people are attracted to the obviously less healthy alternatives.

So why put up a big stink? Its not real and not worth the effort.

Peace
Click to expand...
No quite accurate. Here is how the article sums itself up
What stand should informed people take on same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...
Our society is at a turning point. Are we going to undo the mistakes of the past thirty years that have given us an epidemic of divorce, fatherlessness, drugs, and violent and promiscuous children? Or are we going to continue the legitimization of same-sex unions by giving them the same status as heterosexual marriages?
Click to expand...
The choice is an easy one. Marriage should be exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Marriages like that lead to health, happiness, prosperity, long life, and social peace. And the evidence is there to prove it. Homosexuals will not be able to create marriages like that, even if their “marriages” become legal. Statistics reveal that the lives of homosexuals are anything but gay. A more accurate description would paraphrase Thomas Hobbes’s vision of life apart from civilization: nasty, lonely, and short.
Click to expand...
The loneliness and short lives are not due to the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal. They are inherent in the nature of the homosexual lifestyle itself. Homosexuality doesn’t satisfy; sexually satisfied people don’t seek random sex with hundreds of strangers. Gay activists who seek absolution from society will not find it, even if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Courts and legislatures cannot create clean consciences.
Click to expand...
But legalization of homosexual marriage would empty marriage of its meaning. And that will tend to weaken marriage even further, which will further increase the divorce rate and maximize divorce-related misery.
Click to expand...
The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.
Click to expand...
Because it is intrinsically disordered, we must not recognize homosexual activity as legitimate, and we must not give public approval to homosexual marriage because of the harm that will do to the institution of marriage and because of the social harm that will result from emptying marriage of its meaning. Perhaps the most serious social harm would be to children: the children of divorce and the children of same-sex couples, who will suffer all the ills we have discussed.
Click to expand...
Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain.
Click to expand...
 
To portarica -

For a while I wondered about what would actually happen if same sex couples were given the status of being married. I thought maybe it was only a matter of privacy and personal choice and that would be all it was. In other words, it would have little impact on the lives of non-gays. Now that I’ve read about what’s going on in Massachussets, I see that I was clearly wrong to think that. The entire State is undergoing a complete upheaval, especially in the schools. Instead of promoting love, it appears that the emphasis is on promoting sex acts. Little kids who are both intellectually and emotionally immature, are being given gay storybooks to read, like King and King. Parents who object are told “it’s not a parental notification issue.” Shouldn’t parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit?

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
To portarica -

For a while I wondered about what would actually happen if same sex couples were given the status of being married. I thought maybe it was only a matter of privacy and personal choice and that would be all it was. In other words, it would have little impact on the lives of non-gays. Now that I’ve read about what’s going on in Massachussets, I see that I was clearly wrong to think that. The entire State is undergoing a complete upheaval, especially in the schools. Instead of promoting love, it appears that the emphasis is on promoting sex acts. Little kids who are both intellectually and emotionally immature, are being given gay storybooks to read, like King and King. Parents who object are told “it’s not a parental notification issue.” Shouldn’t parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit?

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
If the parents have developed credibility with their children then they will successfully be able to raise fit children.

The article you referenced did say that there was nothing to fear from gay people. But then goes on to say we must be fearful that they will ruin our marriages because they(gays) live lives of lonely desperation?

If you want your children to grow strong in their faith and their lives they need to know the whole truth.

Because when they find out that part of the justification for things has been fabricated to support the conclusion they will throw the baby out with the bath water.

Peace
 
portarica said:
Ed, to sum up the article: The church has nothing to fear from gays or gay marriage.

Unless presently married people are attracted to the obviously less healthy alternatives.

So why put up a big stink? Its not real and not worth the effort.

Peace
Click to expand...
Are you suggesing that ALL restrictions on who can marry be lifted OR just that an exception be made for thsoe who engage in homosexual behavior?
 
estesbob said:
Are you suggesing that ALL restrictions on who can marry be lifted OR just that an exception be made for thsoe who engage in homosexual behavior?
Click to expand...
I’m saying that I have no problems in my marriage arising from what other people do in theirs.

I don’t care if that marriage is between two men or two women or a man and a women or if those marriages include a hermaphrodite.

I also don’t believe that if we allow gays to marry that we will be going down a slippery slope of allowing all kinds of hook ups to be legal.

But I do find it repugnant that corporations have been given most of the rights of real people.

Peace
 
My wife and I were having a conversation last night about this.

Regarding the article on Massachusetts, if Prop 8 is reversed (Gay marriage is allowed) and the CA public schools have to start teaching gay marriage in the schools, does Catholic schools have to follow suit and teach gay marriage?

I am kinda of in between on this issue. I figure you (personally) have to draw the line in your beliefs somewhere. Can a brother and sister get married as long as they don’t have a baby. The sister can get a sperm donor and have someone else’s baby or they could adopt. If they are in love and don’t have a baby between themselves (for the obvious issues) is it okay if they get married? Where do we draw the line in society? There has to be a line.

Thanks,
 
portarica said:
I’m saying that I have no problems in my marriage arising from what other people do in theirs.

I don’t care if that marriage is between two men or two women or a man and a women or if those marriages include a hermaphrodite.

I also don’t believe that if we allow gays to marry that we will be going down a slippery slope of allowing all kinds of hook ups to be legal.

But I do find it repugnant that corporations have been given most of the rights of real people.

Peace
Click to expand...
You didnt answer my question. Do you think that all restrictions on who can marry or are you just looking fo an exception for those who enage in homosexual behavior?

BTW-my corporatation is not allowed to marry.
 
chessmane4e5 said:
You are correct, the Church does not have the right to force people to do anything.

But, the shoe is actually on the other foot. It is the world trying to tell the Church what the definition of marriage is.
Click to expand...
That’s not really true. The world can tell the Church anything it wants, but the Church has the final say over what its definition of marriage is when it comes to the members of the church. But the Church cannot nor should it attempt to define what it considers marriage to non-Catholics; most people have already defined in their minds what constitutes marriage whether it is in conformance with the teachings of the church or not…
 
estesbob said:
You didnt answer my question. Do you think that all restrictions on who can marry or are you just looking fo an exception for those who enage in homosexual behavior?

BTW-my corporatation is not allowed to marry.
Click to expand...
yes I did: between 2 people, just didn’t spell it our.
 
gamewell45 said:
What about those married couples who decide not to procreate? What happens to civilization then?
Click to expand...
This is a whole other thread. But basically, if a married couple decides from the start that no children will be welcome, then it is not a marriage. Do a search about children and the validity of marriage.

But if they do not have children, or decide later not to have children, that has nothing to do with this thread’s topic. It’s a fact that homosexual couples by design cannot procreate, so their can be no such thing as homosexual “marriage.”
 
surritter said:
This is a whole other thread. But basically, if a married couple decides from the start that no children will be welcome, then it is not a marriage. Do a search about children and the validity of marriage.

But if they do not have children, or decide later not to have children, that has nothing to do with this thread’s topic. It’s a fact that homosexual couples by design cannot procreate, so their can be no such thing as homosexual “marriage.”
Click to expand...
so if there can’t be a “marriage” how can you oppose something that can’t exist?
 
gamewell45 said:
That’s not really true. The world can tell the Church anything it wants, but the Church has the final say over what its definition of marriage is when it comes to the members of the church. But the Church cannot nor should it attempt to define what it considers marriage to non-Catholics; most people have already defined in their minds what constitutes marriage whether it is in conformance with the teachings of the church or not…
Click to expand...
But you are missing the fact that the Church has been the moral compass of the world for almost 2000 years. The Church was criticized when it stood up against contraception and abortion in the 70’s. If only people had listened.

The Church was criticized for not speaking out during WWII.

Seems like a Catch 22 to me. If the Church remains silent and tries to simply protect itself, it is later villainized. If the Church speaks out against something, it is villainized for being an old archaic bully. But in the end, the Church has possessed the truth more than not.

But ultimately the Church does have a duty to protect Christians and non-Christians because we are all God’s children. Often times children do not want the help of their parents, but the parent still does all they can to protect their children. I think gay marriage should not be made legal for the same reason that drug use is not made legal. We can say that gay people are still going to live together (people are still going to use drugs) but at least the message of society is clear, that it is morally wrong to do so. Again, if only divorce and abortion were still viewed as morally wrong by society, I can only imagine how much better the world would be.
 
portarica said:
so if there can’t be a “marriage” how can you oppose something that can’t exist?
Click to expand...
Obviously if the government were to try to offer homosexual marriages, that would be an official statement by the government that homosexual marriages are possible. So Catholics are heading that off by exposing that homosexual marriages are not possible, and to offer these marriages when they’re not possible would simply be a farce, yes?

Analogy: If the government’s official astronomy agency tried to declare that there is another moon orbiting the Earth, wouldn’t it make sense to point out that that can’t be declared, because no such thing exists? 🙂
 
portarica said:
so if there can’t be a “marriage” how can you oppose something that can’t exist?
Click to expand...
You’re right! So we should let them get married. But wait, then there would be something to oppose. But if its not really a marriage, then we can’t oppose it.

Your use of logic has confounded us, therefore you win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top