T
takers
Guest
This is my hometown and it’s been interesting to read the local viewpoints on whether she was in the right or not.
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Viki63
Guest
My concern is mostly for the children – I really don’t want my grandson taught that same sex dating and marriage are okay. If it were legalized, the kids in schools would be taught that, and also that their parents are bigots for not supporting it. Also there would be problems at workplaces, . . suppose my supervisor decided to marry her girlfriend, invited everyone to the wedding, and had a problem with anyone who declined to participate or congratulate her? This could easily happen.
Priests in Canada are in prison for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality. We don’t want that here. There are social ramifications that go far beyond what couples do in the privacy of their homes. There is also the problem of adoptions by same sex couples. Children deserve parents of both sexes.
We do not want to go down that slope any farther than we have already.
Priests in Canada are in prison for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality. We don’t want that here. There are social ramifications that go far beyond what couples do in the privacy of their homes. There is also the problem of adoptions by same sex couples. Children deserve parents of both sexes.
We do not want to go down that slope any farther than we have already.
crystal_waters
New member
^ thisNo, because 2 homosexuals are not marrying, but carrying on fornication and that is against God’s commandments. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
J
JimG
Guest
Certainly two individuals of the same sex are incapable of a conjugal sexual relationship because they are not sexually complementary. Thus, marriage is impossible to them. Not only that, it is not really possible for them to engage in fornication, for the same reason–lack of sexual complementarity.No, because 2 homosexuals are not marrying, but carrying on fornication and that is against God’s commandments. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
The whole idea is a fantasy pretending to be real. Even civil society ought not to be based on illusion.
D
DeusSalusNostra
Guest
In my mind I was more referring to the use of condoms, the pill would definitely validate a marriage I guess, it does not justify it’s use however.I do not believe that the use of contraception as such invalidates a marriage. There may be an issue regarding a hidden intention to never have children, but if a couple practices contraception for a period of time after marriage and has children later, the marriage doesn’t suddenly become valid on the day the wife (for example) goes off the pill.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
There is a difference between enforcing beliefs and defending values. For instance, passing laws that prohibit people from talking about topics or worshiping in some way or another or trying to win converts is enforcing belief. Passing laws that prohibit or encourage certain actions or that define relationships in a particular way is something else again.I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I do not believe it is the right of any religions group (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) to enforce their beliefs via laws/legislation. I think that same-sex marriage should be legalized at the civil levels, but it should never be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Can I hold this belief?
Before you get too strong on your view that religious groups shouldn’t force their ideals on others, consider that irreligious groups don’t seem to have any such compunctions. Secular America doesn’t seem to have any problem with dictating what decent people may or may not think or say or do. They have no more or less right to do that than anyone else, but do not think that America is a country that does not enforce the group consensus with laws, or that taboos are something that only the religious want to see enshrined in law. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don’t apologize for your ideals, just because they are religious in their genesis. The irreligious don’t have to make excuses for why they think what they think, and neither do you.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
But you are O.K. with others redefining what the word “marriage” means – and enforcing that changed definition and their beliefs on us via laws/legislation? This change in what the word marriage means–impacts the kind of society we live in and affects us all. Just as have no fault divorce, contraception and abortion.I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I do not believe it is the right of any religions group (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) to enforce their beliefs via laws/legislation. I think that same-sex marriage should be legalized at the civil levels, but it should never be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Can I hold this belief?
Why is it that secularists can lobby for their views regarding the type of society we should live in but somehow we are precluded from doing the same thing?
Peace,
Mark
L
LongingSoul
Guest
This is one issue (pretty much the only one) in which our Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, stands firmly with natural moral law and I think is an ironically, good example to the world.I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I do not believe it is the right of any religions group (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) to enforce their beliefs via laws/legislation. I think that same-sex marriage should be legalized at the civil levels, but it should never be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Can I hold this belief?
She herself is an avowed atheist living in a defacto relationship and having rejected motherhood for her own life. How very weird it might seem that she is so firmly against same sex marriage!
She has explained her stance this way…
- "Ms Gillard said she was “on the conservative side” of the gay marriage issue “because of the way our society is and how we got here”, the Daily Telegraph reports.
"Now, I know people might look at me and think that’s something that they wouldn’t necessarily expect me to say, but that is what I believe.
“I’m on the record as saying things like I think it’s important for people to understand their Bible stories, not because I’m an advocate of religion - clearly, I’m not - but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture.”
Ms Gillard said she had a “pro-union, pro-Labor upbringing in a quite conservative family, in the sense of personal values”."*
Marriage did not spring from peoples romantic feelings for each other and it did not spring from the need for the contractual benefits in society. It springs from natural law that ordained the union of a man and woman to the propogation of the species.
Civil unions aren’t marriage, but unfortunately remain interchangeable when people are talking the politics of it. If people want to commenorate their feelings for each other and protect their shared wealth with a civil contract we can’t discriminate there, but if it believes itself to be ‘marriage’, it’s a false concept and should be rejected.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
The Church has rejected the idea of civil unions.This is one issue (pretty much the only one) in which our Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, stands firmly with natural moral law and I think is an ironically, good example to the world.
She herself is an avowed atheist living in a defacto relationship and having rejected motherhood for her own life. How very weird it might seem that she is so firmly against same sex marriage!
She has explained her stance this way…
“I think that there are some important things from our past that need to continue to be part of our present and part of our future,” she said. "If I was in a different walk of life, if I’d continued in the law and was partner of a law firm now, I would express the same view, that I think for our culture, for our heritage, the Marriage Act and marriage being between a man and a woman has a special status.
- "Ms Gillard said she was “on the conservative side” of the gay marriage issue “because of the way our society is and how we got here”, the Daily Telegraph reports.
"Now, I know people might look at me and think that’s something that they wouldn’t necessarily expect me to say, but that is what I believe.
“I’m on the record as saying things like I think it’s important for people to understand their Bible stories, not because I’m an advocate of religion - clearly, I’m not - but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture.”
Ms Gillard said she had a “pro-union, pro-Labor upbringing in a quite conservative family, in the sense of personal values”."*
Marriage did not spring from peoples romantic feelings for each other and it did not spring from the need for the contractual benefits in society. It springs from natural law that ordained the union of a man and woman to the propogation of the species.
Civil unions aren’t marriage, but unfortunately remain interchangeable when people are talking the politics of it. If people want to commenorate their feelings for each other and protect their shared wealth with a civil contract we can’t discriminate there, but if it believes itself to be ‘marriage’, it’s a false concept and should be rejected.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
My understanding is that the Church does not oppose the idea of adults who cannot marry setting up arrangements of mutual care, provided that a sexual union is not implied. The idea is that there is nothing wrong with two widows or two bachelors or whatever wanting to set up a household, give each other health insurance, set up mutual rights for hospital visitation, and so on. If the unions bar those who are not in a sexual union or if any conjugal-like rights are implied, that is something else again.The Church has rejected the idea of civil unions.
IOW, this is **not **about being in opposition to people who cannot marry loving and caring for each other! It only has to do with opposition to illicit sexual relationships, and particularly in opposition to the state encouraging such unions.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Of course the Church doesn’t prohibit unmarried people from asexually living together, nor does it prohibit the making of contracts regarding power of attorney and the like, however the idea that the state should create a non-marital union which grants to a couple some or all of the rights of marriage is contrary to Church teaching.My understanding is that the Church does not oppose the idea of adults who cannot marry setting up arrangements of mutual care, provided that a sexual union is not implied. The idea is that there is nothing wrong with two widows or two bachelors or whatever wanting to set up a household, give each other health insurance, set up mutual rights for hospital visitation, and so on. If the unions bar those who are not in a sexual union or if any conjugal-like rights are implied, that is something else again.
IOW, this is **not **about being in opposition to people who cannot marry loving and caring for each other! It only has to do with opposition to illicit sexual relationships, and particularly in opposition to the state encouraging such unions.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I think EasterJoy’s point was that a civil union is a partnership that is not restricted to romantic relationships. In other words, there is nothing wrong, as such, with civil unions, because they are not, as such, about a sexual relationship, but rather have to do with certain legal rights etc between two people who make a commitment to each other (for instance the two widows in EasterJoys’ example)Of course the Church doesn’t prohibit unmarried people from asexually living together, nor does it prohibit the making of contracts regarding power of attorney and the like, however the idea that the state should create a non-marital union which grants to a couple some or all of the rights of marriage is contrary to Church teaching.
U
underacloud
Guest
I’m in favour of civil unions, as a way to allow for homosexual couples (or anyone who wants to enter such a legal understanding) to determine how their assets are handled, and other associated legal rights.
I think allowing for such would take some of the heat out of the arguments of the homosexual lobbies. It would no longer be a matter of legal rights being denied, but a matter of semantic differentiation of marriage (between man and woman) and other forms of commitments (such as civil unions), which would echo the moral differentiation.
At present, though, the Church does not see it this way.
I think allowing for such would take some of the heat out of the arguments of the homosexual lobbies. It would no longer be a matter of legal rights being denied, but a matter of semantic differentiation of marriage (between man and woman) and other forms of commitments (such as civil unions), which would echo the moral differentiation.
At present, though, the Church does not see it this way.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Yes I should have made clear that I’m not suggesting otherwise.The Church has rejected the idea of civil unions.
There is in most places, already legislations that can accommodate shared relationship assets problems and people are free to carry out their private commitment ceremonies to accomodate their feelings… so to introduce another concept called civil union into legislation can really only be to legitimise it under the institution we know as ‘marriage’. The Church could never support that.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The Scripture that supports that position would be 2 Peter 2 1 - 22…Yes I should have made clear that I’m not suggesting otherwise.
There is in most places, already legislations that can accommodate shared relationship assets problems and people are free to carry out their private commitment ceremonies to accomodate their feelings… so to introduce another concept called civil union into legislation can really only be to legitimise it under the institution we know as ‘marriage’. The Church could never support that.
***False Teachers and Their Destruction
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from[d] the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,[f] who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”***
E
EasterJoy
Guest
That is my point. When Archbishop Vlazny said the Church would have no problem with civil unions, he strictly and very clearly meant only civil unions of this type: that is, when the goal was not a sexual union, but mutual care between adults who cannot marry. Let us just say that the gay lobby did not want that, which showed the objection that the advocates for “gay marriage” are just people who want to be able to love and care for each other for the mischaracterization that it is.I think EasterJoy’s point was that a civil union is a partnership that is not restricted to romantic relationships. In other words, there is nothing wrong, as such, with civil unions, because they are not, as such, about a sexual relationship, but rather have to do with certain legal rights etc between two people who make a commitment to each other (for instance the two widows in EasterJoys’ example)
D
Dredgemate
Guest
You absolutely can hold this belief. I do.I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I do not believe it is the right of any religions group (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) to enforce their beliefs via laws/legislation. I think that same-sex marriage should be legalized at the civil levels, but it should never be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Can I hold this belief?
C
choirmaster
Guest
i am very confused too. a family member, a niece entered a civil partnership with her girlfriend. I gave her a card and a present though i do nto agree with her decision. was that the wrong thing to do? how do we approach family members in these relationships. any comments will really help me thanks
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Those advocating same-sex marriage (and those trying to rationalize civil unions) are wrong. Rome has spoken so the matter is closed.You absolutely can hold this belief. I do.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Of course you can hold any belief that you wish to. However, believing that any union between homosexuals is in any way acceptable goes against our Church and you have stepped away from the Church by holding and stating that belief.You absolutely can hold this belief. I do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.