I'd like to ask one more time (political opposition to gay marriage rights)

[ProdglArchitect]

So all the civilisations throughout history, (on whose discoveries, philosophies and experiences, our own Western civilisation was built and developed,) count for nothing - as they weren’t Christian? What about the rest of the non- Christian world today? Have you visited or read about the huge mix of cultures in India for instance? They are founded on God or Gods - just not in the way you have chosen! Their societies are rich and are not ‘paling’ in comparison to ours. In Kerala for instance, Hindus, Muslims and Christians live side by side. A lot of people are poor - but only in monetary terms. There is 100% literacy for their kids today. China is on the up…have you kept abreast of how China is doing these days? In the future our society may just be looking a bit pale beside that of China…

I didn’t say they count for nothing, stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually wrote. I said that they are, for the lack of a better word, inferior, specifically because they do not honor God. That has nothing to do with technological advancements, monetary gains, literacy, or any other worldly concern such as that;rather, it addresses the proper societal structure, and the extent to which the true worth of the individual is upheld.

No, it’s not that clear. The secular world does not understand why gay relationships cannot be held up as equal to straight relationships. It is scientifically normal for some humans to be gay, and gay people are capable of loving, committed relationships and raising families. So the secular world would see it as a positive thing to legally recognize gay marriages.

The fact that they don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t clear, it just means that they’re ignoring the obvious. This could be compared to someone who persists in believing that the world is flat, despite the fact that we can literally fly around; or more aptly to holocaust deniers, whom chose to ignore every piece of evidence and historical data we have on the subject. The reality of the matter is plainly evident, and yet people refuse to acknowledge it. You can’t use the fact that people refuse to acknowledge something as grounds for that something not being obvious or true.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

No, it’s not that clear. The secular world does not understand why gay relationships cannot be held up as equal to straight relationships. It is scientifically normal for some humans to be gay, and gay people are capable of loving, committed relationships and raising families. So the secular world would see it as a positive thing to legally recognize gay marriages.

The fact that they don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t clear, it just means that they’re ignoring the obvious. This could be compared to someone who persists in believing that the world is flat, despite the fact that we can literally fly around; or more aptly to holocaust deniers, whom chose to ignore every piece of evidence and historical data we have on the subject. The reality of the matter is plainly evident, and yet people refuse to acknowledge it. You can’t use the fact that people refuse to acknowledge something as grounds for that something not being obvious or true.

 

[Nixbits]

The Roman Catholic Church’s view on marriage is not the only one that counts. Marriage, as well as being a sacrament, is also a secular social custom recognised by civil law.

Anyone that refuses to accept that two people are married in the eyes of the law of the land and, furthermore, breaks the law regarding discrimination in relation to such people, is surely failing to follow Our Lord’s teaching to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. Getting involved with influencing the laws of the land might, for some, also be regarded as getting involved with Caesar’s business. The recognition of marriage as a legal status is the jurisdiction of the law, not the Church.

The Roman Catholic Church does not, as far as I know, campaign for the marriages of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, sterile people and people beyond the age of reproduction to be denied the legal status of marriage. Even though the Church might consider them not to be valid marriages before the One True God and may consider these marriages to be ‘inferior’, the Church does not get involved. Why is the issue of the equality of legal secular marriage between two persons of the same sex so different that it provokes such hostility? And why should a secular, or at least non-Catholic, government care what the Catholic Church thinks?

 

[nodito]

The Roman Catholic Church does not, as far as I know, campaign for the marriages of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, sterile people and people beyond the age of reproduction to be denied the legal status of marriage. Even though the Church might consider them not to be valid marriages before the One True God and may consider these marriages to be ‘inferior’, the Church does not get involved.

The Catholic Church does consider marriages between Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc to be perfectly valid.

Two people of the same gender are unable to marry each other, because the essence of marriage is sexual complementarity. This is why the Church opposes legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” - it’s essentially recognition of a lie.

 

[Megan7]

Can you help me understand the following?

Why was same-sex marriage on the ballot at one time? It was voted down twice in California.

Why have mostly judges and politicians ignored the will of the people?

Why have gay lobbying groups spent millions of dollars?

Why has one gay group and a prominent celebrity publicly state that it should be called marriage, and in the other case, that “civil unions” or partnerships reduces gay partners/ couples to second-class citizens?

Why are little kids in public schools being given storybooks that promote gay marriage, like King and King? Kids are not physically or emotionally mature enough to fully understand such things.

Best,
Ed

Ed, what saddens me so much, is that it seems that year after year they seem to target younger children
I read that a lot of the Common Core reading material has so much filth, whether its making gay relationships seem normal or having explicit sexual reading material for pre teens (classified as literature )

By the way, I have the same questions, you listed in your post above.

It is all very upsetting. Thanks for your posts & links, Ed. God bless.

 

[Scottgun]

Anyone that refuses to accept that two people are married in the eyes of the law of the land and, furthermore, breaks the law regarding discrimination in relation to such people, is surely failing to follow Our Lord’s teaching to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. Getting involved with influencing the laws of the land might, for some, also be regarded as getting involved with Caesar’s business. The recognition of marriage as a legal status is the jurisdiction of the law, not the Church.

Let’s apply this to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850:

“Anyone that refuses to accept that escaped slaves are property of their masters and must be returned to the master’s plantation in the eyes of the law of the land and, furthermore, breaks the law is surely failing to follow Our Lord’s teaching to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. Getting involved with influencing the laws of the land might, for some, also be regarded as getting involved with Caesar’s business.The recognition of chattel slaves as a legal status is the jurisdiction of the law, not the Church.”

Render unto Caesar does not mean, and has never meant, that there is an obligation to cooperate with evil.

 

[Kelt]

Yes. Lisa Miller had one of those same-sex whatchamacallits. Lisa had a daughter through in-vitro fertilization. Lisa converted to Christianity and naturally rejected her “marriage”. The courts in a fit of insanity awarded custody to her creepy ex-“spouse” who had absolutely no biological connection to the daughter. So Lisa fled with Isabella out of the country somewhere where there is no extradition.

Now of course people whine that Lisa is a criminal, but common sense tells us that she is a criminal in the sense that someone harboring a slave in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act is a criminal.

There is nothing live-and-let-live about homosexual “marriage”. That’s because homosexuality is a form of idolatry, the idol being self. The god of Self does not like to be told “no” and when it has enough power to enforce its will, will not take “no” for an answer.

Pot meet kettle. As long as people write falsehoods based on incoherent relativistic platitudes, we’ll make the time to write the Truth.

You cite just one rather crazy sounding case which would have been the same whether her partnership was with a man or a woman. It depends what legal niceties they got themselves involved in about the child - probably signed a document granting equal custody - as with a normal couple. Why did the partnership break up? It sounds like someone interfered and made her believe a whole lot of scary stories.
That’s just nonsense about idolatry. Presumably people of the same sex are allowed to share a house? It’s just if they commit to each other they’re suddenly a threat to society.
The language you use just shows your contempt. Do you know any homosexual people?

 

[Nixbits]

@ScottGun: Hmm, good point.

I think the difference between anti-discrimination laws and the Fugitive Slave Act example that you mentioned is that, in the former case the law expects Catholics to treat same sex couples no different to different-sex couples. Whereas in your example, the law demanded that Catholics treat escaped slaves very differently to free people.

I accept that the distinction is not entirely clear-cut and perhaps someone can find an example that further muddies the water. But in one case we are asked to show respect and equality within civil situations, which to my mind does not contradict the teachings of Jesus and so is ‘Caesar’s domain’. In the other case we are asked to treat someone (a slave) differently, as if they were lesser or inferior, which does contradict Jesus’ teaching and so cannot be considered purely Caesar’s domain.

I make the distinction here that civil marriage, however the law defines it, should be respected within civil situations; whereas Catholics should respect only marriage that conforms to the teaching of the RCC when within the Church.

The analogy is made more difficult by the fact that the Holy Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery, which is in itself perplexing.

 

[Kelt]

Kelt, why does it have to be a “couple”? What is it about the number two that makes it a marriage-like relationship that should be affirmed publicly?

As I am not homosexual myself I’ll have to answer for them. Two people of the same sex can be attracted to one another, fall in love and want to build their lives together just like heterosexual couples. They’re not just ‘friends’…you don’t share that sort of love with more than one person. They want to make a home and share it and keep each other company for the rest of their lives. They naturally want some outward sign of commitment - I did, why shouldn’t they? If they want to bring up a child who would otherwise have no family, all well and good. My mother was brought up by her mother who lived with another woman after WWI and a generation of young men had been killed. There were apparently the usual rumours about them but as far as I know they were just companions, who lived and worked together, but what if they were more than that? They obviously loved each other after sharing their lives at such a difficult time in history and my mother loved them both. My grandmother adopted an orphan as well. They both grew up to have their own ‘normal’ families…why not?
The ss couples I know have no children. They are devoted to each other and are accepted in their communities and whether they have a sex life I neither know nor care.
Try talking to some Gay couples…

 

[Kelt]

Can you help me understand the following?

Why was same-sex marriage on the ballot at one time? It was voted down twice in California.

Why have mostly judges and politicians ignored the will of the people?

Why have gay lobbying groups spent millions of dollars?

Why has one gay group and a prominent celebrity publicly state that it should be called marriage, and in the other case, that “civil unions” or partnerships reduces gay partners/ couples to second-class citizens?

Why are little kids in public schools being given storybooks that promote gay marriage, like King and King? Kids are not physically or emotionally mature enough to fully understand such things.

Best,
Ed

Not being there, I don’t know when or where same sex marriage was on a ballot in US.
You have a democracy - presumably the judges and politicians uphold the will of the majority.
You know why the lobbying groups have to spend so much money…they have a lot of prejudice to fight!
I’m guessing that they want equal rights…but I doubt you’d accept civil unions either - would you?
As for the books, I agree that they’re unnecessary - if the homophobia in older people is gone, there is no need to target and confuse very young kids. I agree, they’re too young to be taught these things until they come across them naturally.

 

[nodito]

As I am not homosexual myself I’ll have to answer for them. Two people of the same sex can be attracted to one another, fall in love and want to build their lives together just like heterosexual couples. They’re not just ‘friends’…you don’t share that sort of love with more than one person. They want to make a home and share it and keep each other company for the rest of their lives. They naturally want some outward sign of commitment - I did, why shouldn’t they? If they want to bring up a child who would otherwise have no family, all well and good. My mother was brought up by her mother who lived with another woman after WWI and a generation of young men had been killed. There were apparently the usual rumours about them but as far as I know they were just companions, who lived and worked together, but what if they were more than that? They obviously loved each other after sharing their lives at such a difficult time in history and my mother loved them both. My grandmother adopted an orphan as well. They both grew up to have their own ‘normal’ families…why not?
The ss couples I know have no children. They are devoted to each other and are accepted in their communities and whether they have a sex life I neither know nor care.
Try talking to some Gay couples…

Kelt, as it happens, I do know several gay couples and find them to be perfectly pleasant, lovely people.

What I’m trying to do is point out your own assumptions about marriage, and cause you to question them. You asked why any couple that loves each other shouldn’t be allowed to marry. But the fact is that without the traditional understanding of marriage (man and woman), the number of people in a marriage (two) is arbitrary. The traditional understanding of marriage requires exactly and only two people because of our biology; a child is created from exactly one man and one woman.

Suppose we remove the aspect of sexual complementarity and the begetting children from our understanding of marriage (as is happening in the secular world today). Why do we insist that marriage must only involve two people? Why not three or four? What if they love each other and want to commit to each other for life? What if a group of siblings really loves each other and wants to commit to living with each other and raising children together in a marriage? Do you see how this confuses what marriage actually is?

I’m not being flip here. I’ve nothing against roommates living together and loving each other platonically, or grandparents raising their grandchildren when needed. There are all kinds of love and all kinds of families and relationships and many of them are very good. But they are not all marriages.

 

[Kelt]

Marriage, real male+female “marriage” of two becoming one, not one plus another one, is pre-Christian, pre-Judaic, and is the universal sacrament public bonding of a man and woman that protects the vulnerable female and the child she bears. The whole “king” system demanded by the Jews, the foreign system of “men first” was advised against by God, and is replayed here in the ultimate male privilege of female-free “marriage.” The genetic absurdity of male+male or female+female “marriage” is as bogus as a transvestite ripping off women’s culture to ape females in this WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST culture of death! The good part of this bad situation is that it was ALL prophesied: as in the days of Noah, marrying and giving in marriage. This is the profane marriage of the latter days that was, in Noah’s time, as violent as gay “marriage” today with astronomical rates of violence between homosexuals.

WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST! The Democrats blocked special “hate crime” protection for pregnant females as that now accorded to homosexuals who statistically “hate” each other as regards rates of violence.

WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST! Homosexuals are one of the richest demographics in the world because they can’t make expensive babies.

WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST! The only homosexual marriage in history was that of Nero marrying his boy-servant who looked like the wife he kicked to death. What, pray tell, is the precedent for protecting, hallowing, and encouraging the sterile bond of non-anatomically-correct genital manipulation that is homosexuality? What good is it for society at large to create this special protected class of rich, privileged homosexuals and ignore the most at-risk among us, moms and babies?

WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST, the real War on Women, is the final delinking of men and women; parents and their living offspring now scraped out to rising breast cancer rates per Dr. Joel Brind and his abortionbreastcancer.com/ meta-stats. This is Barbie & Barbie, and Ken & Ken’s ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST Dream House built over dead babies’ bodies. And it was all prophesied.

FEMALE+MALE MARRIAGE IS GOD’S DIVINE AND TIMELESS INTEGRATION PLAN OF PEACE THAT IS THE FIRST AND WILL BE THE LAST SACRAMENT WHEN CHRIST RETURNS FOR HIS BRIDE THE CHURCH.

Know what happens under “WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST”?

WAR!

Not sure what to make of this…doesn’t make much sense at all…where does abortion come into this thread?
War? What are you on about?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, what saddens me so much, is that it seems that year after year they seem to target younger children
I read that a lot of the Common Core reading material has so much filth, whether its making gay relationships seem normal or having explicit sexual reading material for pre teens (classified as literature )

By the way, I have the same questions, you listed in your post above.

It is all very upsetting. Thanks for your posts & links, Ed. God bless.

You’re welcome, Megan7. I am puzzled as to why making ‘gay marriage’ legal automatically initiates programs in such states. Who funds and organizes this? Who agrees to put books like King and King in the hands of children in public schools? I think it’s obvious that if two men get married that they are not just the neighbors next door. Instead, it is very clear that young people are being indoctrinated and the media is doing all it can to promote the idea that this type of marriage is no big deal, including on TV.

One site was concerned that there would be two Americas, one part gay and the other part straight. Why? Others are here trying to convince Catholics that no harm will come. My fellow Catholics, please understand what marriage really means.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MarkInOregon]

I have just picked out these points…
the implication that there would be no human need for marriage other than reproduction - I can’t agree with that! People who don’t have children are still given the right to be married…there is more to marriage than having to have children. (Or is childlessness a valid reason for divorce - I think impotence is? In which case, one party suffers).
The next point is a bit vague…I take it it is not allowing for homosexuals to live together!! In not sure what it means by their needs being met in other ways. Non sexual I suppose.

It never ceases to amaze me how much time and energy and how many words get written to pontificate on this subject. I just don’t get it. Why oh why can’t ANY couple just be allowed to cement their relationship publicly ( if they want) and be allowed to live together in peace? They are not causing abortions and they don’t even have to consider contraception and their private life is no more their neighbour’s business than yours or mine are.
My homosexual friends and acquaintances are not in the least causing any upset in my society.
Marriage gives a couple an extra strength, a bond to help them through times when they might want to run out and give up. It’s the same for Gay couples. Surely it’s better that they should commit to each other and work at their relationship. Call it a partnership if there’s a problem with the word.

I can only take it that you did not actually search for and read the article and do not understand the point it is making or the conclusions drawn. Why did marriage arise? What was it’s purpose? Marriage is a fundamental building block of society–changing what it is and what it’s purpose is has effects on society. That this fact is missed by so many or can not be acknowledged is what is so astounding. You are free to think these effects will be good, but I am free to think they will not–and that is another discussion.

I did not say they were causing abortions or needed to use contraception – those are examples of changes --along with no fault divorce–that I am sure you would say are private and no ones business --and my point was these things have had a great impact on our society as a whole–they impact more than the individuals involved–they impact us all. Changing what marriage is will also.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

** Why oh why can’t ANY couple just be allowed to cement their relationship publicly ( if they want) and be allowed to live together in peace? They are not causing abortions and they don’t even have to consider contraception and their private life is no more their neighbour’s business than yours or mine are.**

Excellent question Kelt.

ANY couple SHOULD be allowed to solemnize a relationship publicly. And be allowed to live in peace.

But…

Why oh why must it be called a marriage? There are many differences between a marriage and a same sex relationship. Since we must now call a same sex relationship a marriage…how do we differentiate between the two?

For example:

Jim and Bob are now married as are Bill and Sue. Jim and Bob have no potential of procreation, but Bill and Sue do. Jim and Bob cannot consummate their marriage, Bill and Sue can. Jim and Bob do not physically compliment each other, while Bill and Sue do.

What we have now are two distinctly different relationships with the same name. What a social dilemma…

My homosexual friends and acquaintances are not in the least causing any upset in my society.

Your friends may be the nicest people any neighbor would want, but their sexual behavior causes upset in any society. It is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. Today, sexually transmitted disease is at epidemic levels within the gay communities of major American cities. Society has the right and obligation to protect all members. But society has failed. By redefining marriage, society is now promoting and condoning a behavior that affects the health of all.

 

[nodito]

It is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. Today, sexually transmitted disease is at epidemic levels within the gay communities of major American cities. Society has the right and obligation to protect all members. But society has failed. By redefining marriage, society is now promoting and condoning a behavior that affects the health of all.

Zelt, I happen to agree with your conclusion that homosexual unions are not marriages and that they are sinful. But I think you’re arguing it the wrong way. Sexually transmitted diseases are common across many demographics and it would be possible for two homosexuals to remain chaste until “married” and therefore eliminate the possibility of spreading disease.

Homosexual unions are not sinful because they spread disease. They are sinful because they contradict the very nature of the men and women involved in them.

 

[Paleocon]

Now that gay marriage rights are established in the majority of US states, with no hope of reversal, I’d like to ask this question one more time…

Where in Catholic teaching is found the MANDATE that Catholics must oppose gay marriage rights not just personally, but also POLITICALLY?

1. Is it anywhere in the Bible? (It is not)
2. Is it “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” written by Benedict in 2003 before he became pope?
3. If #2 is yes, is that document really part of the Magisterium? Is it actually and expressly required for Catholics to follow this document? (We know that Ratzinger was and still is a polarizing figure in the Vatican.)
4. If #3 is yes, can’t it be simply repealed, or deemphasized, by Francis?

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

See error #67.

Since the Church has said that the state should not legalize divorce, why on Earth would you think it should recognize same-sex marriage?

 

[Kelt]

Excellent question Kelt.

ANY couple SHOULD be allowed to solemnize a relationship publicly. And be allowed to live in peace.

But…

Why oh why must it be called a marriage? There are many differences between a marriage and a same sex relationship. Since we must now call a same sex relationship a marriage…how do we differentiate between the two?

For example:

Jim and Bob are now married as are Bill and Sue. Jim and Bob have no potential of procreation, but Bill and Sue do. Jim and Bob cannot consummate their marriage, Bill and Sue can. Jim and Bob do not physically compliment each other, while Bill and Sue do.

What we have now are two distinctly different relationships with the same name. What a social dilemma…

Your friends may be the nicest people any neighbor would want, but their sexual behavior causes upset in any society. It is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. Today, sexually transmitted disease is at epidemic levels within the gay communities of major American cities. Society has the right and obligation to protect all members. But society has failed. By redefining marriage, society is now promoting and condoning a behavior that affects the health of all.

If ss couples want to call their commitment ‘marriage’ it doesn’t make my marriage any different. When and why do you have to differentiate between the two? As long as they don’t have to decide who is husband and who is wife! It just means they’re a committed couple.
Promiscuity spreads diseases, whatever ‘kind’ of sex is involved. I do not condone promiscuity. Marriage is a commitment for fidelity.

 

[Kelt]

I can only take it that you did not actually search for and read the article and do not understand the point it is making or the conclusions drawn. Why did marriage arise? What was it’s purpose? Marriage is a fundamental building block of society–changing what it is and what it’s purpose is has effects on society. That this fact is missed by so many or can not be acknowledged is what is so astounding. You are free to think these effects will be good, but I am free to think they will not–and that is another discussion.

I did not say they were causing abortions or needed to use contraception – those are examples of changes --along with no fault divorce–that I am sure you would say are private and no ones business --and my point was these things have had a great impact on our society as a whole–they impact more than the individuals involved–they impact us all. Changing what marriage is will also.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I would not condone too easy divorce or abortion which is killing. They do affect society. I don’t know why they keep being lumped together with homosexuality. Contraception is an entirely private matter for couples. The world overpopulation is going to be our downfall and lack of access to contraception keeps women in poverty the world over…but that’s for another thread.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zelt, I happen to agree with your conclusion that homosexual unions are not marriages and that they are sinful. But I think you’re arguing it the wrong way. Sexually transmitted diseases are common across many demographics and it would be possible for two homosexuals to remain chaste until “married” and therefore eliminate the possibility of spreading disease.

Homosexual unions are not sinful because they spread disease. They are sinful because they contradict the very nature of the men and women involved in them.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and agreement.

You are correct to say that “Sexually transmitted diseases are common across many demographics”. However STDs are rampant within the gay community and that needs to be addressed.

I would be less than honest if I did not agree that “…it would be possible for two homosexuals to remain chaste until “married” and therefore eliminate the possibility of spreading disease.” Just about anything is “possible”. The probability, however, would be that the homosexual couple would NOT remain chaste. There is also a considerable percentage of homosexuals who have no intention of “marrying” and no intention of remaining chaste at all. Therefore the risk of spreading disease within and without the gay community is climbing.

From a religious standpoint homosexual unions are indeed sinful for many reasons. But intelligent people do not need an organized religion or the teachings of the Magisterium or scripture to know that such unions are not natural. After reading reports from our own Centers for Disease Control, even the most zealous gay sympathizers have to admit that the danger of STDs is growing.

To some on the forum I am considered to be the resident “racist, sexist, homophobe”. But it seems that I am the only one promoting awareness of this health problem. I cannot understand why gay activists and sympathizers remain so focused justifying their behavior and fighting so hard to redefine marriage rather than saving lives within their own community. Am I (the homophobe) the only one who cares?