True, God is Love and love has won a will continue to win. But the ‘God of Love’ you speak of doesn’t approve of gay marriage since he in the beginning created women for man. He does have patience with our errors, which is a true act of Love for us. The Catholic Church is my religion since it was created out of True love, for love till the end of time.
Actually, Matrimony is a sacrament of the Church. Marriage is a civil matter regulated by law whose goals include property, inheritance, and child responsibility matters. In some, but not all places, civil law recognizes the religious rite as having legal standing. In other places, there must be separate civil and religious ceremonies. Marriage as a legal institution existed long before the Church.
aTraditionalist this reference to the ‘genitals’ is your sole definition and not mine. If your stating your a sexually inactive gay individual then I applaud you.
QuasiCatholic or Kinda Catholic or Kinda Protestant which ever name or position you take. We are in a Catholic Forum so yes marriage does have to do with men, women, and children and may I add God to it which you seem to leave out.
Yes, but you’re talking about stopping LEGAL gay marriage. Which makes this about more than our own faith. It makes it a question of constitutional law. And fairness to everyone, regardless of our beliefs or their beliefs.
Your whole argument is based on an equivocation of the word “love” with “sex” and, therefore, the phrase “God is love” means, for you, the same as “God is freedom to have sex.” The problem is that “sex” is not a transferable term with “love.” Love does not mean the freedom to have sex with whomever one chooses. You can fool some of the people, but hopefully most will see this as nonsense.
Why would we “impose” the traditional definition of marriage? Well, for one thing, it is strange to talk of imposing a definition of marriage that virtually all societies, all religions, and all governments agreed on throughout the world and throughout history, until the very recent past – maybe 15 to 20 years ago. I’m not saying that every society, religion, or government agreed on every aspect of marriage. But they did all agree that it was the union of a man and a woman.
Just because society thinks it’s right does it make it right. We have abortion that’s not right yet society and the laws accept it. Divorce overall is not right yet society thinks it is. So no saying that society thinks is right is a bad argument.
Thank you good answer, we have the marijuana issue in Colorado once again it doesn’t mean it’s right.
But you stated bc society thinks is right. Society is taught is was and still is right to have abortion. Where is the love in that?
There is something oddly twisted in this argument. Every individual has a right to “impose” their beliefs on others. The gay lobby is working very hard to impose its beliefs on others. The reason, I would hope, that individuals are Catholic is because their beliefs are in accord with Church teaching. That means the beliefs of those individuals reflect and are reflected by Church teaching. Every Catholic has a right, as an individual, to “impose” their beliefs on the state merely as a matter of having the political right to do so within a democracy.
Yes, but the United States of America is not a simple majority-rules democracy, and while we can debate the influence of Christianity in general in its founding, the US is not, in any sense, a Catholic nation. The US didn’t have a sacramental definition of marriage yesterday, and it won’t tomorrow. Catholic philosophical arguments have played very little role in the legal landscape on same-sex marriage.
Ill let the Vicar of Christ respond to this"
But we’re not talking about the civil perspective of marriage. We’re talking about the age old commitment of a man and woman before God to love and honor him together and raise children to honor him also. Part of the problem with the so called same-sex marriage push is the denigration of marriage into nothing more than a civil contract between two people who want to have sex and protect their assets. How utterly demeaning and what a mockery this makes of marriageMarriage, from a civil perspective, is a simple two-party legal contract. It’s a combining of fortunes (or debts, in some cases) and legal responsibilities. It confers various rights regarding inheritance, health care decisions, etc. that do not otherwise exist.
It has everything to do with children, sex and living together. To try to separate these for marriage that means the institution to nothing more than a legally recognize coupling of two people.
Correct. Our this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the institution of marriage should be diminished to accommodate homosexual behavior
Another example of people pulling random, out of context, quotes from scripture and making profound theological pronouncements based upon their personal interpretation thereof.
It is an awfully twisted argument. Basically the argument is that people of faith should have no say in the laws of the country unless a check their religion at the door.
Well, part of the marriage vows is binding oneself for life to the spouse, “forsaking all others.” So yes, that would preclude fornication.
