Gay Marriage

[Ilovejesus1234]

My current stand on gay marriage is that I think it will not change society if it is legalized and my opinion is that society will still know that marriage is specifically between me and women but still see the other forms as kind of odd and not right but just accept them for who they are but not really acknowledge it as a true marriage if that makes sense, I reject gay marriage but do not wish to vote against it or to vote for it.

 

[PolarGuy]

You can open a new thread but all you’re doing is repeating now what you said for 5 pages on the last thread you opened about this.

As I wrote – you can think whatever you want but the facts prove otherwise. First it was gay marriage. Then a person wants to marry himself. Then a person wants to have a commitment ceremony to memorialize her attachment to an immaterial object (Erika Eiffel -that was the name I was searching for). Next is a man who wants to marry his horse. Point is, these oddities flowed from somewhere, and the somewhere - gay marriage - is now thought of as normal…

…including by you, which sort of speaks volumes, doesn’t it? After all, if it wasn’t normal, you wouldn’t want to allow it, wouldn’t you?

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

I know it is isn’t normal, but i don’t want to vote against something unless it is basically killing someone and in some cases themselves. I don’t want to vote against it because i don’t see it as that serious, nor do i want to vote for it because it is against my morality. I am neutral, I feel like i cannot do much else unless i can understand why i want to vote against it.

 

[thistle]

I know it is isn’t normal, but i don’t want to vote against something unless it is basically killing someone and in some cases themselves. I don’t want to vote against it because i don’t see it as that serious, nor do i want to vote for it because it is against my morality. I am neutral, I feel like i cannot do much else unless i can understand why i want to vote against it.

You already have a thread running on this topic. Are we all expected now to copy and paste our comments from your other thread into this thread.

 

[PolarGuy]

If you’re against laws that don’t involve killing, that must mean you think we should have none of the following laws:

1. Laws against a host of nonviolent crimes, including cyber crimes, ID theft, or the like;
2. Laws against election crimes, i.e., preventing someone from stuffing a ballot box with fake ballots;
3. Laws for consumer protection or preventing merchants from lying to customers or selling junky products;
4. Laws requiring government licensing for people who the public look to to protect them, i.e., under your theory anyone can call themselves a doctor or lawyer if they want to;
5. Laws against welfare fraud, disability fraud, or other forms of defrauding the public;
6. Laws requiring honesty by banks or lenders;
7. Laws requiring airlines and railroads to maintain their vehicles that the public travels on?
8. Laws against child porn.

“Being neutral” would preclude any of these, I mean, you might make someone angry (ie a purveyor of child porn) by passing laws like these, right?

Would you like to revisit/revise your statement?

 

[YADA]

So … If you don’t understand why marriage should be only between a Man and Woman and how that is a positive for our society … AND you do not see a societal harm in marriage between two women, two men …

What about between a woman and her biological dad? Is that okay? Why or Why not? Or a son marrying their mother? Or siblings marrying each other … can you see that once you re-define it remains open for perpetual definition … is it true that any definition of marriage benefits society - none harm?

nj.com/news/index.ssf/201…ther_movi.html

naijaurban.com/40yearold-…-son-pregnant/

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315307/Ive-married-sister–having-second-baby-Siblings-defied-law-plan-start-new-life-abroad.html

Or polygamy? the Mormon faith had to disavow polygamy in order for Utah to gain statehood … but some Mormons want to practice polygamy … Also - while a majority of Moslems do not practice polygamy - it is not prohibited …

If you start redefining “Marriage” … where do you stop the redefinition? Where can you limit the definition? Who gets to say what that definition is?

Is that a concept you can imagine? … Do you see that the redefinition has no end?

And believe me - with our current sex trade crisis, sex slaves, pornography addiction and all of the brokenness we have in the world … there is no end in sight once you redefine Marriage … its the tip of an iceberg

 

[underacloud]

I know it is isn’t normal, but i don’t want to vote against something unless it is basically killing someone and in some cases themselves. I don’t want to vote against it because i don’t see it as that serious, nor do i want to vote for it because it is against my morality. I am neutral, I feel like i cannot do much else unless i can understand why i want to vote against it.

The great thing about the Catholic faith and the Church is that each individual is not encumbered with the complex task of understanding and working through difficult moral issues. God doesn’t expect each of us to be able to do that, and has thus provided the Church as a sure teacher of morals.

So it really doesn’t matter if you understand any particular teaching; what matters is that you follow it. And the Church teaches that we cannot support gay marriage (or even civil unions).

I don’t really know what you mean though when you say you “do not wish to vote against it or to vote for it”. Do you live in a country/electorate where these issues are put to a wider vote? In most places, these issues are addressed by representatives in parliament/congress, not directly by the wider electorate.

 

[jaimeleglise]

Gay marriage does not kill anyone? It kills the soul spiritually , leading away completely from God. Also it effects other family members especially children.

 

[SuperLuigi]

My current stand on gay marriage is that I think it will not change society if it is legalized and my opinion is that society will still know that marriage is specifically between me and women but still see the other forms as kind of odd and not right but just accept them for who they are but not really acknowledge it as a true marriage if that makes sense, I reject gay marriage but do not wish to vote against it or to vote for it.

I’m convinced that is not good enough under normal circumstances. To vote for something like so-called gay “marriage” or abortion under no duress is a serious problem and really cries material cooperation of evil.

To remain neutral in these cases is a very dangerous proposition for the soul and is lukewarm.

If you truly reject it, then vote against it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Gay marriage does not kill anyone? It kills the soul spiritually , leading away completely from God. Also it effects other family members especially children.

I think we’ll start to see evidence of that in the future. Of course, the activists will maintain their effort to stifle such evidence as they do with progressive causes, but the Truth will become harder and harder to ignore.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Ilovejesus1234;12790273]I know it is isn’t normal, but i don’t want to vote against something unless it is basically killing someone and in some cases themselves. I don’t want to vote against it because i don’t see it as that serious, nor do i want to vote for it because it is against my morality.

You should see it as serious. Homosexual actions are one of the sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance. Are you sure you want your stamp of “I’m not against this, kinda, sorta” on that?

I am neutral,

Not a good place to be on this issue. Be against it without exception. :yup:

I feel like i cannot do much else unless i can understand why i want to vote against it.

Please examine the threads on here were we have discussed so-called gay “marriage”.

 

[Rau]

You should see it as serious. Homosexual actions are one of the sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

It may interest the OP to note that Murder and abortion are also in that category.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I know it is isn’t normal, but i don’t want to vote against something unless it is basically killing someone and in some cases themselves. I don’t want to vote against it because i don’t see it as that serious, nor do i want to vote for it because it is against my morality. I am neutral, I feel like i cannot do much else unless i can understand why i want to vote against it.

In addition to what everyone else said, it is important to realize that in the current state of the US, a vote against gay marriage is not a vote to outlaw gay people living together as though they were married. It is a vote to prevent the government from creating a legal institution in support of such actions.

There are things that are immoral that ought not be illegal, true enough. But that’s not what’s at issue here. People who desire to do so can already live with members of the same sex as though married, even in places where gay marriage does not exist. Rather, voting against gay marriage is voting to stop the government from creating an institution to support immoral behavior.

 

[Rau]

My current stand on gay marriage is that I think it :

• will not change society if it is legalized; and my opinion is that
• society will still know that marriage is specifically between men and women;

[but that society will]

• still see the other forms as kind of odd and not right;
• just accept them for who they are;
• not really acknowledge it as a true marriage if that makes sense

I reject gay marriage but do not wish to vote against it or to vote for it.

I structured your post to make clearer your remarks.

Should everyone adopt your position of taking no position whatsoever on the matter? Is leaving the matter to those who do wish to express an opinion somehow a good choice? You must explain that at some point.

Your statement above that the adoption of gay marriage as a normal, state-endorsed and celebrated institution will not change the society is patently false. Mature adults with a relevant understanding of the subject may know the true nature of marriage, and may know what is right and what is wrong, but how can you say that about the young who are just growing up now?

Are you so sure that children growing up with TV programs replete with funny gay couples (I mean that in the nicest possible way), some married, some bringing up children…are you sure these young minds are not influenced by what they see? How can they be unaffected? How wrong can it be if we see it daily in prime-time TV, if the courts enforce “gay rights” and the nay-sayers are admonished and labelled bigots? Are you so sure that even your own children will not be influenced by the deluge of positive spin and institutional support for what is euphemistically called “marriage equality” and “gay rights”?

You say that people will know that same sex marriage is not “true” - yet the effort to corrupt the notion of marriage is being waged under the banner of civil rights, even “human rights”. Do you agree with that characterisation or would you refute that claim? Those who don’t adopt the newly approved societal norm that marriage is for same sex couples no less that it is for man+woman, are declared bigots! Do you quietly accept that, or would you refute such a charge?

I suggest you need to reconsider the demonstrable impacts of the message delivered already by our governments, by the courts and by the media about marriage - and the capacity of people at large, particularly the young and impressionable, to simply put all that messaging aside and see the truth. Life is not like that. To say that society has not been changed, or will not be changed, is demonstrably false.

 

[Rau]

Ah. But the majority of people in this world do not consider this immoral behavior.
That is why you should not get in the way of it.
You cannot and should not impose your beliefs on others who disagree with you.

I’m not sure anyone is proposing to get in the way of what PolarGuy and you termed “immoral behaviour” - that is, the sexual relationship between persons of the same sex. I’m not aware of any substantive effort to outlaw that behaviour.

What is at issue is this: why is the government altering the existing institution of marriage to incorporate another form of relationship which is, by its very nature, not the same?

Orthodox Jews feel it’s “immoral behavior” for a man and woman who are not married to dance together and do not allow it.
So does that mean they should stop* you *from dancing with someone from the opposite sex?
No.

I would not support such a law either.

 

[AyJSimon]

What is at issue is this: why is the government altering the existing institution of marriage to incorporate another form of relationship which is, by its very nature, not the same?

Because it’s their definition to alter. The Catholic Church can define marriage one way. Baptists can define it another way. Hindus can define it yet another way. And the secular government(s) of the United States can define it still another way. Nothing insists that any institution’s definition must be accepted by all the others.

 

[Rau]

Because it’s their definition to alter. The Catholic Church can define marriage one way. Baptists can define it another way. Hindus can define it yet another way. And the secular government(s) of the United States can define it still another way. Nothing insists that any institution’s definition must be accepted by all the others.

The laws of the land can be changed with the support of a majority - that is a fact. But why this particular change? And everyone, including Catholics, gets to ask that question and express their opinion.

 

[PolarGuy]

Daddygirl, you write that “[y]ou cannot and should not impose your beliefs on others who disagree with you.”

That’s outrageous.

Why? Because we do this all the time, and in fact we have to in order to have a civilized society.

We “impose” via the law all sorts of beliefs that some might disagree with, namely, the belief that certain actions are wrong and should be punished. We “impose our beliefs” that child porn is wrong, even though child pornographers dislike those laws; we impose the belief that driving while drinking is wrong even though alcoholics who drive disagree; we impose our beliefs that all sorts of things are wrong and thank God we do!

Or do you think we should have no laws against child pornography?

Now, you also claimed I was factually mistaken that things like “marrying an inanimate object” and “marrying yourself” flowed from gay marriage. I stand behind that statement and you will have to actually offer some proof for your belief that I’m wrong, since those “marriages” in reality – whether you like them or not – came shortly on the heels of gay marriage and are a natural outgrowth of defining marriage as something other than “1 man, 1 woman.” Since you’re all into “logical reasoning,” reason it out: When marriage ceases to be 1 man, 1 woman, why stop it at 2 men or 2 women? Answer: You can’t, and society isn’t.

Sorry, but I find your posts to be poorly-reasoned and unsupported by the facts.

 

[JimG]

My current stand on gay marriage is that I think it will not change society if it is legalized and my opinion is that society will still know that marriage is specifically between me and women but still see the other forms as kind of odd and not right but just accept them for who they are but not really acknowledge it as a true marriage if that makes sense, I reject gay marriage but do not wish to vote against it or to vote for it.

But of course it will change society. It is already changing society. If marriage can be between two men or two women, it is no longer marriage, because marriage requires sexual complementarity. Persons of the same sex can not even engage in marital relations, they are incapable of conjugal relations, and thus incapable of marriage.

Why should we care if same sex persons wish to have a pretend marriage? We should care because it makes marriage meaningless. And if marriage is meaningless, fewer people will marry. That is already happening. Marriage is at an all time low. The percentage of young people who are married has declined drastically.

And that is concerning because marriage and family are the building blocks of civilization. Any society in which marriage becomes meaningless is a society in decline—a society in the process of collapse, a society in which you will have to live.

Ever since the dawn of civilization, marriage had been marital—between man and woman. It has formed families, and families have built society and civilization. If we decide to toss away the building block on an emotional whim, we undermine society and ensure its collapse. I might be old enough not to have to live through the most severe consequences of that. But you are young; you will live in a decaying society unless you elect to try to rebuild it beginning now.

It wasn’t same sex marriage that began the process of undermining families. It was contraception. We unlinked children from sex, de-linked children from marriage, produced fatherless children and abandoned mothers. That was followed by divorce, adultery, abortion, every manner of sexual license. Just how long do you wish to hold on to your neutrality while society collapses aroud you?

 

[Bookcat]

My current stand on gay marriage is that I think it will not change society if it is legalized and my opinion is that society will still know that marriage is specifically between me and women but still see the other forms as kind of odd and not right but just accept them for who they are but not really acknowledge it as a true marriage if that makes sense

Such would be at odds with reality.

See the various Church documents on the subject and other fine works.

Marriage and the family are at the foundation of society. Seek to redefine that foundation - yes harm society (including little children -and Jesus was quite serious about those who scandalize the little ones – go read about the milestone Matt: 18:6 and Luke 17:2 -and this is part of what happens from this current movement- children are scandalized and harmed).