Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[Joe_5859]

the marriage licence is not just an observation but a contract. separation of church and state, I only mentioned, because the world always lives differently than the Christian world. Marriage is not written into nature… but reproducing is. Animals do not commit to one partner and God… (few in fact keep one partner for a life time.) point being… take a look at this:

Marriage is a legal as well as a spiritual and personal relationship. When you state your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because, under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawFactsPamphlets/Pages/lawfactspamphlet-35.aspx
Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:

“Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“

Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

Continued…

“…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“
The fruits of the marriage (children) become owner ship of the state rather than the parents.certs.realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/do-you-own-your-children/

Here is an example… i cannot remember the case but I remember the Details. Children in a school were required to take a test. The parents did not want them too because it was invasive. The school they had to because otherwise they were breaking the law and basically saying that they had jurisdiction over the children. The parents outraged said who have you that authority and they casually said your marriage licences and birth {edit certs}
When you register you are handing entitlement to the person you are registering with Regis=King

It then belongs to them… kids for example or even a marriage. It is a contract not an observance.

Point being… the gov is enforcing and believes they have a bigger role in marriage contracts rather than just observance and protecting (whatever they are protecting it from…)

So I bringing up the state contracts is another point for a worldly marriage verses in the Church. The Jews went to the priest for divorce…
People are saying the gov is redefining marriage by allowing gays… well they had already re-defined it long ago by replacing God with the State as the third party… LEGAL marriages would be counterfeit marriages. Important to get married under God in a Chruch with the CORRECT vows.
Not to say a christian should not get legally married they can, but it is not the real observance and should not be held more valuable than the cert or paper from the Rev. (or at least he should give you one separate than the legal gov one)

I’m not disputing that it involves a contract. The contract is how the government keeps track of these things in order to ensure that they are doing their job in protecting marriage and family. I dispute the idea that the government “makes” the marriage. The government didn’t marry my wife and I. Neither did the Church. That’s not within the purview of either. My wife and I married each other.

Marriage is written into human nature. Humans are different from the other animals.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I’m not disputing that it involves a contract. The contract is how the government keeps track of these things in order to ensure that they are doing their job in protecting marriage and family. I dispute the idea that the government “makes” the marriage. The government didn’t marry my wife and I. Neither did the Church. That’s not within the purview of either. My wife and I married each other.

Marriage is written into human nature. Humans are different from the other animals.

ok I agree with you there. Although gov believes they made it.

so Why do you think Christians should fight against legalized gay marriage?

 

[CaliLobo]

TheSeeker2014:

Personally I honestly do not care gay people can legally marry. They want the legal benefits. They have that choice as humans. In technically it is not a marriage from God if it is not done on the spiritual level. Even the vows are different. As long as Revs are not being forced to marry people they do not want too, its fine. Everyone has choices.
I honestly do not see the big deal. Ceremony is different. Vows are different. They are not requiring Revs to do the marriages. People have the choice to sin if your reason is being gay is sinful. If children are going to brought into this, well for one:
gays do not abort
many adopt children that would probably never have a home otherwise
Sure there may not be a physical mother or father, but what is the difference with that compared to divorced couples with single moms or dads. Many do not even see the other parent. Gay couples… well at least they have two supportive people in their lives that love them. And no, gays do not push sexual orientation on children. Straight people seem to have that tendency.

Look I am not trying to slam anyone but what is wrong with accepting this? honestly?
It is a separate marriage from the christian world. It would be a marriage of the world or state. Like atheists getting married in the court house.But you do not see a huge ordeal about atheists legally getting married and raising children. the same “worries” apply in both cases. Only difference, a physical male or female is missing.
There is separation of church and state for a reason… because Christians are to live in the world but not of the world. That is why.

Gay marriage is a worldly counterfeit marriage. Personally I do not think we should be worrying about it being legal. We {s}ould be worrying about it being done in the Churches.

Amen.

The Church needs to recognize that it has lost this battle. There is no sense in opposing a civil rights issue.

Personally I believe the Church needs to step out of politics, and clean up the corruption and hypocrisy that is going on within. The Church is turning people off with its insistence on stepping into politics.

I agree, who cares if secular groups want to redefine marriage? It was never valid to God to begin with. All that matters is what the Church does within, with its people, despite whatever a secular government does.

That’s all that God cares about. Jesus never did anything to change a Roman secular government that openly persecuted Christians.

The Church needs to reposture itself. Either:

1. Support getting the government out of marriage, and leave marriage as the province of other entities such as churches
   Or 2) Posture itself as an oppressed minority and seek religious protections the way Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Jehovah’s Witnesses get in America.

 

[Joe_5859]

ok I agree with you there. Although gov believes they made it.

so Why do you think Christians should fight against legalized gay marriage?

I don’t necessarily think Christians should fight against anything. I think Christians should fight for what marriage really is: the union between a man an a woman whose natural complementarity leads to the procreation of children who are united with them as a family as a result of that union. Gay marriage is excluded from this not because Christians want to be mean to gay people but simply because such unions do not fit the definition.

 

[estesbob]

Amen.

The Church needs to recognize that it has lost this battle. There is no sense in opposing a civil rights issue.

.

This is not a civil rights issue. Engaging in sodomy creates no rights.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I don’t necessarily think Christians should fight against anything. I think Christians should fight for what marriage really is: the union between a man an a woman whose natural complementarity leads to the procreation of children who are united with them as a family as a result of that union. Gay marriage is excluded from this not because Christians want to be mean to gay people but simply because such unions do not fit the definition.

ok. What if a people cannot have children for various reasons (excluding same-sex). should the marriage still be carried out… or is this just the potential theoretically.

 

[Joe_5859]

ok. What if a people cannot have children for various reasons (excluding same-sex). should the marriage still be carried out… or is this just the potential theoretically.

There is a difference between barriers to procreation that occur accidentally (using the word in the philosophical sense) – such as infertility and old age – and barriers to procreation that occur by nature – such as two individuals not having complementary biological parts.

 

[glendab]

Hello Estes.

This is not a civil rights issue. Engaging in sodomy creates no rights.

:clapping::tiphat:

Very good. You’re right. There is no right to commit sodomy or any of the other myriad of perversions some engage in that are now labled a “lifestyle choice.”

Glenda

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t think there’d be much opposition if they didn’t insist on calling it marriage.

What’s wrong with “civil unions”?

Even Obama said he was against gay “marriage” when he first ran for president.

What happened?

Civil unions were opposed by all the groups who oppose SSM, and so in reality, there was no compromise situation to be had. If religious groups had been willing to institute civil unions in an appropriate manner, we may never have seen SSM. The question, of course, becomes whether it would be moral to support civil unions as a means to prevent SSM. That I don’t know, but it should’ve been clear by the late 1990s that SSM would eventually be legal to anyone paying attention. The religious got super-cocky and ignored all polling trends, claiming liberal bias, and now we’re at where we are today.

 

[Vico]

Amen.

The Church needs to recognize that it has lost this battle. There is no sense in opposing a civil rights issue.

Personally I believe the Church needs to step out of politics, and clean up the corruption and hypocrisy that is going on within. The Church is turning people off with its insistence on stepping into politics.

I agree, who cares if secular groups want to redefine marriage? It was never valid to God to begin with. All that matters is what the Church does within, with its people, despite whatever a secular government does.

That’s all that God cares about. Jesus never did anything to change a Roman secular government that openly persecuted Christians.

The Church needs to reposture itself. Either:

1. Support getting the government out of marriage, and leave marriage as the province of other entities such as churches
   Or 2) Posture itself as an oppressed minority and seek religious protections the way Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Jehovah’s Witnesses get in America.

The Pontifical Commission gave the reason for opposition in that “legal initiatives present all the characteristics of non-conformity to the natural law which makes them incompatible with the dignity of the law”.

 

[estesbob]

Civil unions were opposed by all the groups who oppose SSM, and so in reality, there was no compromise situation to be had. If religious groups had been willing to institute civil unions in an appropriate manner, we may never have seen SSM. The question, of course, becomes whether it would be moral to support civil unions as a means to prevent SSM. That I don’t know, but it should’ve been clear by the late 1990s that SSM would eventually be legal to anyone paying attention. The religious got super-cocky and ignored all polling trends, claiming liberal bias, and now we’re at where we are today.

The religious adhered to their faith in spite of the whims of the culture of the times.That is the way it should be.

 

[SMGS127]

The religious adhered to their faith in spite of the whims of the culture of the times.That is the way it should be.

That is a fair position.

It is also a fair position to say that it would potentially be moral to have supported civil unions when it became a certainty in the late-1990s that SSM would be legalized eventually if there was no similar institution nationwide. But growing up in the late-90s/early-00’s, it always amazed me at the blinders conservatives put on. “ALL THE POLLS ARE WRONG,” etc. Worked great with SSM and worked great with the 2012 election .

 

[estesbob]

That is a fair position.

It is also a fair position to say that it would potentially be moral to have supported civil unions when it became a certainty in the late-1990s that SSM would be legalized eventually if there was no similar institution nationwide. But growing up in the late-90s/early-00’s, it always amazed me at the blinders conservatives put on. “ALL THE POLLS ARE WRONG,” etc. Worked great with SSM and worked great with the 2012 election .

As Catholics we must ALWAYS stand for the truth regardless of polls, regardless of election results. We stood against a bastardization a marriage then and we should continue to do so regardless of the cultural consequences.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

As Catholics we must ALWAYS stand for the truth regardless of polls, regardless of election results. We stood against a bastardization a marriage then and we should continue to do so regardless of the cultural consequences.

It is one thing to let people know how you and the Church feels about things

It is another to take away the God given choice to sin if it is not killing another or abusing(harming)

 

[estesbob]

It is one thing to let people know how you and the Church feels about things

It is another to take away the God given choice to sin if it is not killing another or abusing(harming)

It is harming them, their “spouse” and our society. There is a huge difference between taking away the choices to sin an affirming it.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

It is harming them, their “spouse” and our society. There is a huge difference between taking away the choices to sin an affirming it.

How?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

The conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, saying that truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by a “dictatorship of relativism” and that is the gravest problem of our time.

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

 

[glendab]

Hello Zoltan.

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

The conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, saying that truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by a “dictatorship of relativism” and that is the gravest problem of our time.

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

Marvelous comments. Thanks for sharing. Keep it up.

Glenda

 

[runningdude]

Amen.

The Church needs to recognize that it has lost this battle. There is no sense in opposing a civil rights issue.

Personally I believe the Church needs to step out of politics, and clean up the corruption and hypocrisy that is going on within. The Church is turning people off with its insistence on stepping into politics.

If we wait for everything to be “perfect” nothing will ever get done. Imperfect men need to stand up for the truth, because being weak in conviction is more “off” putting than being flawed.

I agree, who cares if secular groups want to redefine marriage? It was never valid to God to begin with. All that matters is what the Church does within, with its people, despite whatever a secular government does.

That’s all that God cares about. Jesus never did anything to change a Roman secular government that openly persecuted Christians.

Jesus converted the heart of Emperor Constantine to end the persecution and allow the open spread of Christianity throughout the Western World. Jesus Christ is alive today, doing the same.

The Church needs to reposture itself. Either:

1. Support getting the government out of marriage, and leave marriage as the province of other entities such as churches
   Or 2) Posture itself as an oppressed minority and seek religious protections the way Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Jehovah’s Witnesses get in America.

The Church must always argue from a position of strength. Allowing herself to be portrayed as weak and “oppressed” in the freest country in history, when she has the absolute backing of the Almighty Lord is cowardly and a dereliction of duty.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Amen.

The Church needs to recognize that it has lost this battle. There is no sense in opposing a civil rights issue.

If homosexuality were remotely a civil rights issue, the Catholic Church would be defending it.

However, there is no constitutional basis to assert that gender identity is a civil right.