Help me understand this whole gay marriage thing

[Costner]

Okay, so I know that gay marriage goes against what we believe in , but why should we make an effort to prevent gay people from getting married? What if they are not religious and don’t care if its a sin? If God gave us free will shouldn’t we just let it go and let the gays do what they want and just pray for them? Until I get more information about why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal my stance on the topic as of right now is this. I don’t agree with gay marriage because its a sin in Gods eyes, but I believe people are free to do what they wish as long it doesn’t interfere with the Church’s teaching.

Is the reason why this is such a big deal is because if Gay marriage is legal, Catholic church’s are forced to marry them? And also can someone give me a simple understanding of what separation of church and state is? please and thank you.

I’m in America in case you are wondering. And I apologize for any incorrect grammar I may have used.

 

[ljwahn]

Gay marriage is an assault on the institution of marriage itself. I don’t think in this situation we can say well, ok its a sin but I’m not sinning so it isn’t hurting me. How about if i decided to go before a judge and marry my prized cow? Would that bother you? Now I know that is a far out suggestion but is not this the slippery slope gay marriage may get us started on?

 

[buffalo]

Society in the best interests of the common good and children has a right to regulate marriage.

 

[In_Spiration]

Society in the best interests of the common good and children has a right to regulate marriage.

Exactly. That’s the entire reason civil marriage exists as an institution at all. It is the State’s endorsement of the basic family unit (husband/father, wife/mother, children). Marriage has never been some sort of post facto sentimental recognition of legally-allowed mutual feelings; instead, it has always been a positive, incentive-based promotion of stable, natural procreation.

There’s no good reason for the State to promote sodomy. (As I’ve said before, I refer to “same-sex marriage” more accurately as state-sanctioned sodomy.) And the burden of proof is against those advocating it, not those opposing it.

 

[dee_burk]

i think the more we keep quiet about those types of issues the harder it is to defend the Catholic faith. to love all people, we should be concerned with the morals of all people and want everyone to go to heaven. if you never explain to a child what is right or wrong, how do they develop their moral conscience? same with adults that have a skewed moral conscience, we need to explain Christ and the sin of this type of relationship.
make sense?

 

[edwest2]

Okay, so I know that gay marriage goes against what we believe in , but why should we make an effort to prevent gay people from getting married? What if they are not religious and don’t care if its a sin? If God gave us free will shouldn’t we just let it go and let the gays do what they want and just pray for them? Until I get more information about why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal my stance on the topic as of right now is this. I don’t agree with gay marriage because its a sin in Gods eyes, but I believe people are free to do what they wish as long it doesn’t interfere with the Church’s teaching.

Is the reason why this is such a big deal is because if Gay marriage is legal, Catholic church’s are forced to marry them? And also can someone give me a simple understanding of what separation of church and state is? please and thank you.

I’m in America in case you are wondering. And I apologize for any incorrect grammar I may have used.

You’re not thinking clearly, and there are Catholics who say “I’m personally opposed to abortion but I won’t let myself get in the way of those who want one.” Then why are you Catholic? Millions are dead

Separation of Church and State is a fiction. The Federal government cannot force all of us to accept a State religion but they cannot hinder our right to practice ours, and that includes everybody: Jews, Muslims, etc.

Why is it wrong? Here is the answer:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Auntie_A]

Your question and arguments make sense perhaps if we each lived on our own planet. Then any individual action we make would have no effect on anyone but ourselves. But our actions affect others and BIG CHANGE like the “gay marriage thing” will have lasting effects.

The repeated argument of individual rights and “just as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody…” are repeated so often that any and all arguments of personal liberty begin to lose their merit.

We live in a world that is big and old. Fundamental societal morals and rules don’t just pop up in a century, decade, or a year; they are often time-tested. After the repeated “experiments” and experiences that have failed and caused harm for generations, societies establish the basic rules of getting along and living with each other. Some societies do this better than others and no society does it perfectly and completely.

At a pragmatic level, IF the concept of gay marriage were to have any validity, wouldn’t it be most important to look for historical precedents rather than personal rights? In past civil rights issues THAT would be where the truth could be gleaned. Inter-racial marriage for example had historical precedence because there had already been inter-racial marriages throughout history. We are all here because of someone in our family tree inter-marrying. I can’t find a similar parallel in a same sex marriage.

Could any of this explain why there might be a considerable opposition?

 

[buffalo]

Your question and arguments make sense perhaps if we each lived on our own planet. Then any individual action we make would have no effect on anyone but ourselves. But our actions affect others and BIG CHANGE like gay marriage will have lasting effects.

The repeated argument of individual rights and “just as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody…” are repeated so often that any and all arguments of personal liberty begin to lose their merit.

We live in a world that is big and old. Fundamental societal morals and rules don’t just pop up in a century decade or a year; they are often time-tested. After the repeated “experiments” and experiences that have failed and caused harm for generations, societies establish the basic rules of getting along

At a pragmatic level, if the concept of gay marriage were to have any validity, wouldn’t it be most important to look for historical precedents rather than personal rights? In past civil rights issues THAT would be where the truth could be gleaned. Inter-racial marriage for example had historical precedence because there had already been inter-racial marriages throughout history. We are all here because of someone in our family tree inter-marrying. I can’t find a similar parallel in a same sex marriage.

In addition, race and homosexual acts are different.

 

[Truly_Blessed_1]

Here is a good article where USA Today interviewed Archbishop Cordileone on this topic:
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/21/archbishop-cordileone-gay-marriage-catholic-church/2001085/
That said, some people are not religious, or their religion says a lot of things that are against Catholic Doctrine. What about abortion, the death penalty, or our society’s blatant disregard for the poor and homeless?

 

[St_Francis]

Here is a good article where USA Today interviewed Archbishop Cordileone on this topic:

Cordileone… Lionheart

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/21/archbishop-cordileone-gay-marriage-catholic-church/2001085/
That said, some people are not religious, or their religion says a lot of things that are against Catholic Doctrine. What about abortion, the death penalty, or our society’s blatant disregard for the poor and homeless?

“Pushing religion on others” would involve things like requiring church attendance and the like. Merely being religious in public is not pushing religion on others, and defending the lives of others and the foundational institution of society is certainly not pushing religion on others any more than having laws against the murder of those already born.

 

[90Domer]

Okay, so I know that gay marriage goes against what we believe in , but why should we make an effort to prevent gay people from getting married? What if they are not religious and don’t care if its a sin? If God gave us free will shouldn’t we just let it go and let the gays do what they want and just pray for them? Until I get more information about why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal my stance on the topic as of right now is this. I don’t agree with gay marriage because its a sin in Gods eyes, but I believe people are free to do what they wish as long it doesn’t interfere with the Church’s teaching.

Is the reason why this is such a big deal is because if Gay marriage is legal, Catholic church’s are forced to marry them? And also can someone give me a simple understanding of what separation of church and state is? please and thank you.

I’m in America in case you are wondering. And I apologize for any incorrect grammar I may have used.

Because you will start having mockery of marriage like this story portrays:

news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-woman-marries-building-protest-demolition-224250710.html

 

[LittleFlower378]

It may take some time to read these documents but if you get a chance take your time and read throught them.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Legislation creating “same-sex” marriage: What’s at stake? by Cardinal Francis George
catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2013/0106/cardinal.aspx

 

[buffalo]

Cordileone… Lionheart

“Pushing religion on others” would involve things like requiring church attendance and the like. Merely being religious in public is not pushing religion on others, and defending the lives of others and the foundational institution of society is certainly not pushing religion on others any more than having laws against the murder of those already born.

Perhaps we could substitute - “pushing truth on others”.

 

[Steinway]

Okay, so I know that gay marriage goes against what we believe in , but why should we make an effort to prevent gay people from getting married? What if they are not religious and don’t care if its a sin? If God gave us free will shouldn’t we just let it go and let the gays do what they want and just pray for them? Until I get more information about why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal my stance on the topic as of right now is this. I don’t agree with gay marriage because its a sin in Gods eyes, but I believe people are free to do what they wish as long it doesn’t interfere with the Church’s teaching.

Is the reason why this is such a big deal is because if Gay marriage is legal, Catholic church’s are forced to marry them? And also can someone give me a simple understanding of what separation of church and state is? please and thank you.

I’m in America in case you are wondering. And I apologize for any incorrect grammar I may have used.

If you wonder what harm redefining marriage would have on society look at Massachussetts. The push for “gay marriage” is really is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and forcing its acceptance on (otherwise unwilling) citizens and our social, political, and commercial institutions.

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html#.UVdDbQKo89k.facebook

 

[john78]

the OP had a good question, if Supreme Courts start deciding that homosexual marrages are legal, would in turn the US Government try and force the Catholic Church or any faith to provide a ceremony for a homosexual couple. Now please before you go an scream no the Catholic Church would never do that ( take a breath, that wasn’t the question ), the question is , would the US Gov TRY to force it.

And as towards the Seperation of Church and State, it has been answered correctly, but IMHO, I really think it is a fear by the government, worrying that the Catholic Church would try to enforce or have some kind of influence on those citizens that they govern.

Pretty much like how when a politican announces during a presidential run that they are Catholic, or Mormon, or some other faith, what happens in the media an how quick does the bashing start on that politican, yet every president is quick to announce that he is Christian and yet acts in a way completely opposite the faith.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Is the reason why this is such a big deal is because if Gay marriage is legal, Catholic church’s are forced to marry them?

The state can’t force any particular church to perform gay weddings.

And also can someone give me a simple understanding of what separation of church and state is?

The US government was designed around the concepts of free speech and freedom of religion. The government isn’t allowed to tell churches what to do (as long as they aren’t breaking any laws - like polygamy), and churches are not allowed to dictate laws to the government. England had a lot of problems with church and state getting all tangled: google Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth.

There is a distinction between civil and religious marriages. Under the law, marriage has a specific status with implications for taxes, property, children and health insurance. Each religion may have their own set of rules - but that only applies to people of that faith, and only if the individuals desire it. My husband was Catholic, but we were married outside of the church because our respective previous marriages were legally terminated with divorce, but not annulled by the church. The church has the right to say we couldn’t get married there because we didn’t follow their procedures, but that doesn’t mean the church can keep us from a legal marriage - a contract which is honored in a court of law, or by insurance companies and hospitals.

Some people disagree with the right for other people to marry whomever they want, and they often claim religious doctrine to support their reasoning. They are vehement about what is right and wrong as long as their religion is the one in charge. Some Mormons believe they should be allowed to have multiple wives under the freedom of religion. The government can punish them for bigamy if they try it, but they can’t keep a married couple from letting other people live with them and act like they are all married to each other.

I am fully supportive of Catholics that want their own rules for marriage, just as I am supportive of other faiths to have their own rules. There is always a nut or two around yelling about the ‘slippery slope’ and goats in wedding dresses, but nobody takes them seriously - unless you try to use the goat as a tax deduction.

It’s kinda messy, isn’t it?
I keep to the idea that what you do in your home (as long as you are not infringing on the rights of anyone else) is your business.

 

[edwest2]

The state can’t force any particular church to perform gay weddings.

The US government was designed around the concepts of free speech and freedom of religion. The government isn’t allowed to tell churches what to do (as long as they aren’t breaking any laws - like polygamy), and churches are not allowed to dictate laws to the government. England had a lot of problems with church and state getting all tangled: google Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth.

There is a distinction between civil and religious marriages. Under the law, marriage has a specific status with implications for taxes, property, children and health insurance. Each religion may have their own set of rules - but that only applies to people of that faith, and only if the individuals desire it. My husband was Catholic, but we were married outside of the church because our respective previous marriages were legally terminated with divorce, but not annulled by the church. The church has the right to say we couldn’t get married there because we didn’t follow their procedures, but that doesn’t mean the church can keep us from a legal marriage - a contract which is honored in a court of law, or by insurance companies and hospitals.

Some people disagree with the right for other people to marry whomever they want, and they often claim religious doctrine to support their reasoning. They are vehement about what is right and wrong as long as their religion is the one in charge. Some Mormons believe they should be allowed to have multiple wives under the freedom of religion. The government can punish them for bigamy if they try it, but they can’t keep a married couple from letting other people live with them and act like they are all married to each other.

I am fully supportive of Catholics that want their own rules for marriage, just as I am supportive of other faiths to have their own rules. There is always a nut or two around yelling about the ‘slippery slope’ and goats in wedding dresses, but nobody takes them seriously - unless you try to use the goat as a tax deduction.

It’s kinda messy, isn’t it?
I keep to the idea that what you do in your home (as long as you are not infringing on the rights of anyone else) is your business.

“your business” Not anymore. It just keeps getting pushed into people’s faces 24/7.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The government surely would try to force it just as the HHS mandate.

 

[In_Spiration]

The state can’t force any particular church to perform gay weddings.

The US government was designed around the concepts of free speech and freedom of religion. The government isn’t allowed to tell churches what to do (as long as they aren’t breaking any laws - like polygamy), and churches are not allowed to dictate laws to the government. England had a lot of problems with church and state getting all tangled: google Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth.

There is a distinction between civil and religious marriages. Under the law, marriage has a specific status with implications for taxes, property, children and health insurance. Each religion may have their own set of rules - but that only applies to people of that faith, and only if the individuals desire it. My husband was Catholic, but we were married outside of the church because our respective previous marriages were legally terminated with divorce, but not annulled by the church. The church has the right to say we couldn’t get married there because we didn’t follow their procedures, but that doesn’t mean the church can keep us from a legal marriage - a contract which is honored in a court of law, or by insurance companies and hospitals.

Some people disagree with the right for other people to marry whomever they want, and they often claim religious doctrine to support their reasoning. They are vehement about what is right and wrong as long as their religion is the one in charge. Some Mormons believe they should be allowed to have multiple wives under the freedom of religion. The government can punish them for bigamy if they try it, but they can’t keep a married couple from letting other people live with them and act like they are all married to each other.

I am fully supportive of Catholics that want their own rules for marriage, just as I am supportive of other faiths to have their own rules. There is always a nut or two around yelling about the ‘slippery slope’ and goats in wedding dresses, but nobody takes them seriously - unless you try to use the goat as a tax deduction.

It’s kinda messy, isn’t it?
I keep to the idea that what you do in your home (as long as you are not infringing on the rights of anyone else) is your business.

See my post on the first page. There is no good secular reason for the State endorse sodomy. And see this video (for which you’ll find the continuing parts under “Related videos”) for a sound treatment of the legal principle that would allow for whatever can’t be proved beyond doubt to harm anyone.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

And see this video (for which you’ll find the continuing parts under “Related videos”) for a sound treatment of the legal principle that would allow for whatever can’t be proved beyond doubt to harm anyone.

No thanks, I really don’t like dwelling on the subject - it’s kind of a ‘turn-off’ for me personally. I support the concept of liberty. I would not want (for example) a radical Muslim to dictate to me how I am to live my life, therefor I do not impose my own values on others. I believe there is room for respect for everyone, unless they are causing harm to someone else.