R
Rodney_Fed
Guest
I am doing some research on what Pope Benedict said about the law and would like to find his actual quote. Does anyone have the source where I can read his actual quote?
Thanks
Thanks
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help, I’m starting to question if the politics of gay marriage is really wrong
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fix
Guest
This may help:I am doing some research on what Pope Benedict said about the law and would like to find his actual quote. Does anyone have the source where I can read his actual quote?
Thanks
[CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html)
R
rdscheirer
Guest
I am not arguing the religious nature of Homosexual unions/sex-the question was about politics. We live in a country where (hopefully) freedom of individual conscience reigns.Politically I don’t care what they do and they can have their “marriage” if they want-(the first Canadian gay marriage lasted one year)- it doesn’t hurt you or me if two men want to “marry”- they get the benefits from the employer- health and life insurance etc. that any spouse gets- saves the rest of us money in the long run. I would add that there should be a conscience exemption for employers so they don’t have to cover “same sex partners”- after the contrceptive conundrum I believe that will come next.
B
Brendan
Guest
What if the employer is Catholic, or a Catholic institution? Then it DOES affect us and our Church.I am not arguing the religious nature of Homosexual unions/sex-the question was about politics. We live in a country where (hopefully) freedom of individual conscience reigns.Politically I don’t care what they do and they can have their “marriage” if they want-(the first Canadian gay marriage lasted one year)- it doesn’t hurt you or me if two men want to “marry”- they get the benefits from the employer- health and life insurance etc. that any spouse gets- saves the rest of us money in the long run. I would add that there should be a conscience exemption for employers so they don’t have to cover “same sex partners”- after the contrceptive conundrum I believe that will come next.
I
imokustink
Guest
I have come to believe that when marriage is redefined, it does affect everybody. Redefining marriage in the law to include homosexuality means that sooner or later I will probably encounter a situation at work, school, or in the public square where, because of the nature of law, and the fact that all of society has to observe the law at some level, I will be pressured or forced to speak and act as if 2 men who claim to be in a marriage together are the same as husband and wife - even though this isn’t actually true. It doesn’t really have to do with religion at all. It has to do with obvious human nature, easily observable reality, and yes the right to individual conscience and to not be coerced into approving of things I consider foul and destructive. And it’s not just at church, it can come up in employment too, for anybody from the school teacher to the counselor to the healthcare worker to the supervisor at nearly any job.
The reality is we are at a place where we as a society have to decide on a definition for marriage. It can’t be “whatever”. What does marriage mean? This is one of those times when everybody cannot get what they want. Marriage either describes the unique union of a man and a woman or else it describes any two (?) people who agree they want to marry eachother. 2 men simply are not “equal” to husband and wife in that they are not the same type of physical relationship. And it really does matter, in various and probably unforeseen ways, both now and even more for future generations as the implications of the redefinition play themselves out and develop as these sorts of changes always do. For example, traditional prohibitions against cousin marriage will be harder to justify if both marriage partners can be of the same sex. And are we only going to teach opposite-sex attracted young people to at least try to wait until marriage for sex? The reason for that has always been that children need and deserve a connection to both their mom and dad. But since same-sex couples cannot possibly encounter an unplanned pregnancy by going to bed together, the reasoning behind premarital continence becomes more complex, with the plausible effect being that young people in the next generation will understand the need for it even less than they do now, and one of our biggest societal problems - the problem of children not having firm ties to their fathers - will probably not improve but more likely get even worse.
I think, because of the way the issue is always framed in the media, that people forget the definition of marriage is a public policy issue, not just an individual matter. It’s a lot bigger than just Adam and Steve feeling snubbed and oh if we just redefine marriage throughout society they’ll settle down. Some people are never satisfied. Not sure why that is but …
Anyway, this wonderful no-nonsense woman explains the issue in a nutshell here:
youtube.com/watch?v=28kb10PC-Lw
The reality is we are at a place where we as a society have to decide on a definition for marriage. It can’t be “whatever”. What does marriage mean? This is one of those times when everybody cannot get what they want. Marriage either describes the unique union of a man and a woman or else it describes any two (?) people who agree they want to marry eachother. 2 men simply are not “equal” to husband and wife in that they are not the same type of physical relationship. And it really does matter, in various and probably unforeseen ways, both now and even more for future generations as the implications of the redefinition play themselves out and develop as these sorts of changes always do. For example, traditional prohibitions against cousin marriage will be harder to justify if both marriage partners can be of the same sex. And are we only going to teach opposite-sex attracted young people to at least try to wait until marriage for sex? The reason for that has always been that children need and deserve a connection to both their mom and dad. But since same-sex couples cannot possibly encounter an unplanned pregnancy by going to bed together, the reasoning behind premarital continence becomes more complex, with the plausible effect being that young people in the next generation will understand the need for it even less than they do now, and one of our biggest societal problems - the problem of children not having firm ties to their fathers - will probably not improve but more likely get even worse.
I think, because of the way the issue is always framed in the media, that people forget the definition of marriage is a public policy issue, not just an individual matter. It’s a lot bigger than just Adam and Steve feeling snubbed and oh if we just redefine marriage throughout society they’ll settle down. Some people are never satisfied. Not sure why that is but …
Anyway, this wonderful no-nonsense woman explains the issue in a nutshell here:
youtube.com/watch?v=28kb10PC-Lw
R
rdscheirer
Guest
Look at ancient Greece- as far as I know sexual relations included man/ woman, man/man and woman /woman ,where did that get them?
I
Incomplete
Guest
In Europe, it has recently been ruled that gay marriage is not a right, but that in countries that allow them, any church that marries people has to marry homosexuals as well.I am not arguing the religious nature of Homosexual unions/sex-the question was about politics. We live in a country where (hopefully) freedom of individual conscience reigns.Politically I don’t care what they do and they can have their “marriage” if they want-(the first Canadian gay marriage lasted one year)- it doesn’t hurt you or me if two men want to “marry”- they get the benefits from the employer- health and life insurance etc. that any spouse gets- saves the rest of us money in the long run. I would add that there should be a conscience exemption for employers so they don’t have to cover “same sex partners”- after the contrceptive conundrum I believe that will come next.
While the United States and Europe are not the same, don’t hold your breath that this can’t happen here. In my lifetime things have changed dramatically, both in regards to issues like gay marriage as well as things like the constitutional rights violation of the contraception mandate.
Cardinal Dolan said this regarding same-sex marriage in his state:
But “no sooner was the ink dry,” he said, than priests throughout the state started coming to him with stories of couples threatening to sue if they didn’t agree to rent out their parishes for same-sex weddings.
deseretnews.com/article/700192892/Defending-the-faith-How-Archbishop-Dolan-is-redefining-the-battle-over-same-sex-marriage.html?pg=3
While suing doesn’t mean winning, it does cost money to defend a lawsuit. Between that and the way things are changing, I would not count on robust freedom of religion anymore. There have been a lot of stories about people being sued because they are in the wedding business and wouldn’t accommodate gays because of religious beliefs…and losing. They are being forced to either violate their beliefs or go into another business.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I realize some will not accept it, but I, too, have an aversion to doing violence to language that is otherwise universally understood. I recall when the Supreme Court in my state, in order to accommodate group homes, declared that a “family” is any group of people who live in the same household sharing household duties. By that definition, a group of Hell’s Angels living in the same house would be a “family”. People living in a crack house could be a “family”.I have come to believe that when marriage is redefined, it does affect everybody. Redefining marriage in the law to include homosexuality means that sooner or later I will probably encounter a situation at work, school, or in the public square where, because of the nature of law, and the fact that all of society has to observe the law at some level, I will be pressured or forced to speak and act as if 2 men who claim to be in a marriage together are the same as husband and wife - even though this isn’t actually true. It doesn’t really have to do with religion at all. It has to do with obvious human nature, easily observable reality, and yes the right to individual conscience and to not be coerced into approving of things I consider foul and destructive. And it’s not just at church, it can come up in employment too, for anybody from the school teacher to the counselor to the healthcare worker to the supervisor at nearly any job.
The reality is we are at a place where we as a society have to decide on a definition for marriage. It can’t be “whatever”. What does marriage mean? This is one of those times when everybody cannot get what they want. Marriage either describes the unique union of a man and a woman or else it describes any two (?) people who agree they want to marry eachother. 2 men simply are not “equal” to husband and wife in that they are not the same type of physical relationship. And it really does matter, in various and probably unforeseen ways, both now and even more for future generations as the implications of the redefinition play themselves out and develop as these sorts of changes always do. For example, traditional prohibitions against cousin marriage will be harder to justify if both marriage partners can be of the same sex. And are we only going to teach opposite-sex attracted young people to at least try to wait until marriage for sex? The reason for that has always been that children need and deserve a connection to both their mom and dad. But since same-sex couples cannot possibly encounter an unplanned pregnancy by going to bed together, the reasoning behind premarital continence becomes more complex, with the plausible effect being that young people in the next generation will understand the need for it even less than they do now, and one of our biggest societal problems - the problem of children not having firm ties to their fathers - will probably not improve but more likely get even worse.
I think, because of the way the issue is always framed in the media, that people forget the definition of marriage is a public policy issue, not just an individual matter. It’s a lot bigger than just Adam and Steve feeling snubbed and oh if we just redefine marriage throughout society they’ll settle down. Some people are never satisfied. Not sure why that is but …
Anyway, this wonderful no-nonsense woman explains the issue in a nutshell here:
youtube.com/watch?v=28kb10PC-Lw
So, if that’s to be understood that way, what is the proper term for an actual family? If homosexuals can be said to be “married”, then what is the term for a heterosexual marriage?
If the courts decided that the term “monkey” is properly to be applied to human beings, then what are monkeys? Just monkeys too? What are we, and is there any difference, then, in the concept of humans and that of monkeys?
There is no good reason to call a homosexual union a “marriage” other than the desire of some to obfuscate the fact that there really is such a thing as marriage. Having no name of its own, real marriage is just another voluntary union without peculiar meaning, and certainly without any perceived social utility all its own.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.