I have never ever met a pro "gay marriage" pro life person

[christopher_r]

but you see SSM isn’t just between the two people getting married. If the State says SSM is the same as hetero marriage than in the case of adoptions both must be treated equally. But they are not equal to the child. The child has a biological right to experiencing a mother and a father. Placing a child in a SSM denies the child one of these parents.

Children do best with long term committed parents. The data on that is very clear.
It is less clear that the outcome for the children is inferior if the parents are of the smame gender.

Two parents are better than one and one is better than none.

It is hard for older children to be adopted. My son and his wife adopted an older child. It helps the child.

Foster parents can work hard and be loving. They are often transitory. Children need stability and love.

So the question isn’t what is best. It is what is the best we can manage for each child.
Too many children have much less than stable mother father parents.

May all children find love

 

[christopher_r]

Uh, no they didn’t. They had one wife and a lot of consorts.

Actually, the facts are different. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website:
1Kings 11:3
He had as wives seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines, and they turned his heart.

yes he had concubines. he also had many wives.

 

[Lokadottir]

Actually, the facts are different. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website:
1Kings 11:3
He had as wives seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines, and they turned his heart.

yes he had concubines. he also had many wives.

That place had to be hell once a month!

 

[christopher_r]

the king needs to spend time with the troops

 

[CaptFun]

I can not believe how ignornant catholic people can be towards people who do not share their every thought.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000386217/polls_archie_bunker_0133_295412_answer_1_xlarge.bmp

– term ignomant originally coined by Archie Bunker? *A fictitious non-Catholic TV character of the 1970s famous for malaprop laden broad statements. *:hey_bud:

I have not, simpleas, found the statement above to be true in my life. Though I usually think of Catholic people as “real ones”. Not just anybody who says “I’m Catholic …” and openly flouts the Church’s teachings - and/or perhaps IS an uncharitable or vindictive person looking for an excuse to hate on someone.

If this comment above refers somehow to the term or concept of “gay marriage” … that’s a concept of VERY recent vintage. The Church does not assent to it … because matrimony is a sacrament - and also - there are rules that also prohibit heterosexuals from marrying too. For instance bigamy. Incest (partners too closely related … as in brother/sister) etc.

Like the OP, I have not met a person who reconciled these two unlike concepts.

But they probably exist. Though maintaining both positions requires a bit of doing, unless the person takes both positions rather lightly. IMO.

 

[christopher_r]

Marriage has taken many forms over the centuries and continents. Some cultures deep in the Amazon simply don’t have “marriage” and live as a group, raising their children as a group. There has been monogamy, polygamy, a bit of polyandry. There have been unions of “equals” and unions where the wife/wives was little more than property.

There has been sacramental marriage freely committed in a covenant with each other and with God. Certainly, in my mind this is the best. It is certainly not the only and not that common over time and geography.

The People of God in the Church have a very different understanding of marriage as a permanent union committed to each other and open to children. We will have children or we will all be gone in about a century. These children need to be nurtured and loved.

But there is certainly no reservation to this definition of marriage. It is not the instrument of politics that broke the Church of England from Rome. It is not a financial empire building tool.

I suspect that we will need to modify the word to a phase (Catholic sacramental Marriage).
That phrase can have clear meaning. Marriage unqualified doesn’t, and perhaps never did.

Certainly, King David would not recognize what we mean. Neither would Solomon. And St. Paul while he said wonderful things did not seem to see women as equals to be listened to when they spoke in Church.

We should advocate for the good of our blessings from Catholic sacramental Marriage and rejoice. We should make our arguments on a sound basis. They will be challenged.

Peace

 

[vsedriver]

Actually, the facts are different. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website:
1Kings 11:3
He had as wives seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines, and they turned his heart.

yes he had concubines. he also had many wives.

so I guess it is a good thing that Jesus corrected this idea by stressing that marriage is one man and one woman.

Interesting to note that in all these ‘different’ marriages they still require two genders.

 

[laircy]

There is only 1 student at my Catholic school of over 2000 that I KNOW OF having expressed their view that is in line with Church teaching on both of these issues. There could be more, but they certainly aren’t saying anything. On the other hand, there are plenty I have heard who are pro-life.
Some of my hope for a shift in one paradigm lies in the fact that one of these issues is relatively new, and so we do not yet know and see the full consequences of it as we do with the older issue.
It is rather sad, to see fellow students so easily acquiesce to the culture because they do not really think about things and see the big picture and simply do not want to be seen as “bigots” et al. And eventually they actually believe it. They just think, oh well, why not? rhetorically to themselves, without trying to answer that question, and the conversion is complete.

 

[Organ_freak]

There are secular arguments against SSM.
These are just the start:
tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
asmainegoes.com/content/non-religious-arguments-against-gay-marriage
businessinsider.com/the-legal-case-against-gay-marriage-2012-11

We need to develop these arguments, because we cannot rely soley on arguments based on faith. The traditional marriage arguments must not require those who hear them to first be converted, and we risk alienating potential supporters by relying heavily on faith-based rhetoric.

Traditional marriage is not just a Catholic cause.

 

[MysticMansion]

The only thing going on on this planet is the war between principalities and powers and the people of God. In the meantime the rest of life is surviving through it until the end when the Church shall ascend with its faithful as Christ did because the Church is His Mystical Body on earth reliving His life entirely including His Passion Death and Resurrection. I think that the Church today is lying in the middle of the tomb awaiting resurrection.

It says that before the end of time God would send out angels to divide the sheep from the goats. Abortion, gay rights, gay marriage and many other social ills are the means of dividing those who are sheep from those who are goats. If you support even one of these human miseries your a goat. That does not mean that because someone seems to be on our side that they really are. The church has been infiltrated long ago and it goes on. Jesus said that he would allow the weeds to grow up with the wheat so that none of the wheat would be lost. The weeds will be gathered from amongst the people of God and cast into the fire. I suppose along with all the goats.

 

[kozlosap]

The only thing going on on this planet is the war between principalities and powers and the people of God. In the meantime the rest of life is surviving through it until the end when the Church shall ascend with its faithful as Christ did because the Church is His Mystical Body on earth reliving His life entirely including His Passion Death and Resurrection. I think that the Church today is lying in the middle of the tomb awaiting resurrection.

It says that before the end of time God would send out angels to divide the sheep from the goats. Abortion, gay rights, gay marriage and many other social ills are the means of dividing those who are sheep from those who are goats. If you support even one of these human miseries your a goat. That does not mean that because someone seems to be on our side that they really are. The church has been infiltrated long ago and it goes on. Jesus said that he would allow the weeds to grow up with the wheat so that none of the wheat would be lost. The weeds will be gathered from amongst the people of God and cast into the fire. I suppose along with all the goats.

I think the Church is struggling to connect to 2014. Thank the Lord that Papa Francis is basing his papacy on teaching and living out the Gospels and Corporal Works of Mercy instead of quoting hellfire and damnation. Those who would rather concentrate on sitting in their lounge chairs and feeling that they are much more holy than others will be “left behind” with their rumps still attached to their chair. Instead of lamenting about how evil and immoral our country is, get up and help another human find grace and dignaty…

 

[Thorns]

Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other. They agree to support each other and care for one another. The race, gender, or religious affiliation of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Natural law is easy. It’s the bit inside you which tells your gut something is wrong. Many serial killers, for instance, got a thrill for doing something they know is wrong. Since homosexuals, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to someone of their own gender, it would go against natural law for them to mate with someone if the opposite gender.

If you need a bible to determine if something is wrong, then it doesn’t violate natural law.

Except homosexuals can never be committed to each other.

If you assert they can, what is their commitment based on?

Commitment isnt JUST an agreement. Its an agreement that is open to life where the two become one flesh. By a homosexual unions very nature, this is impossible to achieve.

 

[CaliLobo]

You’ll meet many in Protestant or Evangelical churches. Protestants are gradually rethinking their stance on this issue.

Heck, aren’t there many in Catholic churches too?

I notice Christians are much more emotionally invested in the abortion issue than the gay marriage issue, which they tend to be more indifferent about.

 

[Lokadottir]

You’ll meet many in Protestant or Evangelical churches. Protestants are gradually rethinking their stance on this issue.

Heck, aren’t there many in Catholic churches too?

I notice Christians are much more emotionally invested in the abortion issue than the gay marriage issue, which they tend to be more indifferent about.

I’m sorting MYSELF out on abortion. It’s a truly difficult issue of determining what is a human and what is not.
Gay marriage is not even the POSSIBLE killing of a human.

 

[Lokadottir]

Except homosexuals can never be committed to each other.

If you assert they can, what is their commitment based on?

Commitment isnt JUST an agreement. Its an agreement that is open to life where the two become one flesh. By a homosexual unions very nature, this is impossible to achieve.

…They love and care for each other?
I know plenty of gay couples who have been together for years, WITHOUT marriage.

I greatly dislike the concept that the only reason to people would continue to share their lives is because they are tied down with a kid. It’s inaccurate given the kids I’ve known with divorced parents while growing up in the CATHOLIC school system. And even if it was they could adopt!

 

[Lokadottir]

I think the Church is struggling to connect to 2014. Thank the Lord that Papa Francis is basing his papacy on teaching and living out the Gospels and Corporal Works of Mercy instead of quoting hellfire and damnation. Those who would rather concentrate on sitting in their lounge chairs and feeling that they are much more holy than others will be “left behind” with their rumps still attached to their chair. Instead of lamenting about how evil and immoral our country is, get up and help another human find grace and dignaty…

I… I think that lounging is what Jesus got after the Pharisees for!!!

 

[Lokadottir]

Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other. They agree to support each other and care for one another. The race, gender, or religious affiliation of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Natural law is easy. It’s the bit inside you which tells your gut something is wrong. Many serial killers, for instance, got a thrill for doing something they know is wrong. Since homosexuals, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to someone of their own gender, it would go against natural law for them to mate with someone if the opposite gender.

If you need a bible to determine if something is wrong, then it doesn’t violate natural law.

OH. MY. GODS!
This is the best thing I’ve ever read and its TRUE. Humans as social animals are naturally disinclined to cheating and killing their own group members even if it would technically benefit them. It can be observed in all social animals that deception is used sparingly. Humans are social animals. Whether this was the plan of a creator or simply an indication our species thrives when we are helpful and loving, I can’t tell you.

 

[djames99]

There is only 1 student at my Catholic school of over 2000 that I KNOW OF having expressed their view that is in line with Church teaching on both of these issues. There could be more, but they certainly aren’t saying anything. On the other hand, there are plenty I have heard who are pro-life.
Some of my hope for a shift in one paradigm lies in the fact that one of these issues is relatively new, and so we do not yet know and see the full consequences of it as we do with the older issue.
It is rather sad, to see fellow students so easily acquiesce to the culture because they do not really think about things and see the big picture and simply do not want to be seen as “bigots” et al. And eventually they actually believe it. They just think, oh well, why not? rhetorically to themselves, without trying to answer that question, and the conversion is complete.

Why consider an issue if the Authority has already decided on it?. This is the problem today. Protestant religions allow for debates on principles they define as absolute, and there’s the rub off. This is NOT the stance that Catholics are to take and remain Catholic.

We proceed first to obtain an answer(Nihil Obstat) from the Church. After determining it is open for debate, only then can we do so.

 

[michaeldean]

Your argument that people who support LGBT rights also support abortion because they want sex without responsibility doesn’t make any sense – a same-sex relationship isn’t going to result in pregnancy, isn’t that kind of the reason the church sees it as disordered?
Also, I think there’s a big difference between pro-life and whether you want abortion to be legal. No one actually supports abortion in the sense that they think it’s a good and happy thing. If abortion could be avoided, I’m sure everyone would think that was great. The issue as I’ve always seen it is whether legalizing it will prevent more harm from coming to women who turn to illicit means when faced with no other option. I am pro-life, but I also think that criminalizing abortion will only make it more dangerous, and not actually stop abortion. And I am for gay marriage. So that’s one person.

 

[Rau]

You can’t arrive at the views of individuals by generalising from a sample. It is true that a great many people will support both issues, but as we’ve seen on this thread, not everyone that supports one supports the other.

But, we can ask the question: “Is there a reason to anticipate that support for each of these 2 issues is positively correlated?” Is there a factor that, if present in an individual, tends to encourage that individual towards support for **both **issues?

Perhaps one such issue is a regard for the rights of the “self” as pre-eminent. Some people place the rights of “self” above (most) other rights, and so such a person could be expected to conclude that:

*- the rights of the ‘mother’ (the ‘self’) must come first, and take priority over the rights of the unborn; *

**and **in a similar vein…

- the rights of the gay person (the ‘self’) to be ‘married’ in service of their desires trump arguments (to the contrary) based on morality or civil merits.

The expression “pro-choice”, and the euphemism of “women’s health”, both derive from the philosophy of the pre-eminent “self”, and are entirely self-focussed.

“Marriage Equality” (another euphemism) is a somewhat more sophisticated expression. While retaining a focus on self, it seeks to paint those not supporting the issue as intrinsically “wrong” by invoking (though not without logical defect) the widely supported notion of “equality”.