E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No question.
- Status
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
While intimate friendships and marriages are different in that the latter is about a union of the flesh and the former is not they do depend on much of the same things for them to prosper such as trust, respect, fidelity, charity, forgiveness etc.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I’m agreeing with you. I’m not sure if you’re arguing or not.
V
vsedriver
Guest
as far as religion goes, there is sinful sex and holy sex. Holy sex requires marriage which is open to the creation of life which automatically excludes gays.
as far as legal marriage goes, the whole point of it was for the welfare of children. This is the only logical reason for civil laws to be involved in marriage. Take procreation out of marriage and there is no reason for the state to support marriage with legal and tax perks. And should the state decide that ‘marriage’ doesn’t require the potential of procreation then the state can’t deny anyone the right to marriage perks. Which means I could then legally marry my mother.
perhaps pseudo marriage would be a better term
because it is a sterile union by design. Marriage is not a sterile union by design. So essentially two gay partners are not doing everything a straight couple are doing.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is not a civil rights issue. It does not involve skin color/race, ethnicity or other obvious, inborn human traits. You can’t tell if someone is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
Personal example: I began dating a young lady who I knew loved God. As we got to know each other, things became a little more personal. So, one day, while I’m taking her out, she tells me there’s a few things I should know about her that I might not like hearing. I didn’t feel threatened and I told her, “Whatever it is, just tell me.”
She said, “I use to sleep around with a lot of guys.”
I said, “OK. Are you still doing that?”
She said no because she had turned her life over to Christ. We went to Church together.
Then she said, “I used to sleep around with a lot of women,”
I said, OK. Are you still doing that?"
She said no.
I said, “Fine. No problem. We’re good.” And I could see the look of relief on her face.
I never asked for any details and she didn’t offer any.
Peace,
Ed
Personal example: I began dating a young lady who I knew loved God. As we got to know each other, things became a little more personal. So, one day, while I’m taking her out, she tells me there’s a few things I should know about her that I might not like hearing. I didn’t feel threatened and I told her, “Whatever it is, just tell me.”
She said, “I use to sleep around with a lot of guys.”
I said, “OK. Are you still doing that?”
She said no because she had turned her life over to Christ. We went to Church together.
Then she said, “I used to sleep around with a lot of women,”
I said, OK. Are you still doing that?"
She said no.
I said, “Fine. No problem. We’re good.” And I could see the look of relief on her face.
I never asked for any details and she didn’t offer any.
Peace,
Ed
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Except for sex and kids they overlap on pretty much. It is seems resonable to allow domestic partnerships (partnerships in domestic life not marriages except in name) which have some things bundled such as durable power of attorney, spousal health care coverage etc.I’m agreeing with you. I’m not sure if you’re arguing or not.
G
Giants
Guest
Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation are not the determining factors in what is and is not a “civil rights” issue. The determining factor is whether there are civil rights involved, and being violated.
I’m a natural-born American citizen. I’m white, I’m male, and I’m between the ages of 18-49. I’m a member of what is probably least suspect class currently in America. But if I wanted to get married to a woman, and I was told I could not, and the reasons given did not conform to Constitutional precedent, like say, the 14th Amendment, then this would be a “civil rights issue.”
As far as I’m concerned, gay marriage is so clearly a civil rights issue that it can’t even be intelligently argued otherwise. It deals explicitly with civil marriage rights and benefits offered by the federal and state governments, and it has nothing to do with what religions believe.
I’m a natural-born American citizen. I’m white, I’m male, and I’m between the ages of 18-49. I’m a member of what is probably least suspect class currently in America. But if I wanted to get married to a woman, and I was told I could not, and the reasons given did not conform to Constitutional precedent, like say, the 14th Amendment, then this would be a “civil rights issue.”
As far as I’m concerned, gay marriage is so clearly a civil rights issue that it can’t even be intelligently argued otherwise. It deals explicitly with civil marriage rights and benefits offered by the federal and state governments, and it has nothing to do with what religions believe.
S
Slavonic
Guest
Religion does not involve skin color, race, ethnicity or other obvious, inborn trait. There are civil rights that pertain to religion, though.
There are separate tax perks for those who are married and those with children. Depending on the situation a person/couple may receive either one or both.as far as legal marriage goes, the whole point of it was for the welfare of children. This is the only logical reason for civil laws to be involved in marriage. Take procreation out of marriage and there is no reason for the state to support marriage with legal and tax perks. And should the state decide that ‘marriage’ doesn’t require the potential of procreation then the state can’t deny anyone the right to marriage perks. Which means I could then legally marry my mother.
It’s not.
V
vsedriver
Guest
it would be a civil rights issue if gays were not allowed to marry. But there is no box to check for sexual orientation on a marriage license. A gay man can marry any eligible woman willing to marry him. Basically a gay man or woman has the same right to marry as a straight man or woman. So there is no discrimination going on.
What gays want is the right to marry WHO they want. Well if you are going to say that is ok then you can’t discriminate against anyone who wants to marry who they want, or how many who(s) they want to marry.
The benefits offered by the federal and state governments are for the protection of children which is the whole reason the government pays any attention to marriage at all. And if you say the benefits offered have nothing to do with children then I want access to the same benefits no matter who I choose to live with domestically, be it a parent or a sibling or even an adult child. I am being discriminated against for my close blood relationship.
Stephen168
New member
A working married couple paid a tax penalty, in the USA, until 2003. Now the only “perk” is going to one income married couples; the assumption is the none wage earner is taking care of the children. If this “perk” is considered unfair and contrary to the common good then the “perk” can be removed by the government.
When blacks and women were treated unequal by the government, we changed the laws. We did not pass laws declaring blacks to be white or women to be men to end the inequality.
E
edwest2
Guest
Then why are you posting on a Catholic forum? What’s the point? And this is not just a Christian thing either. Our Jewish neighbors have something to say as well.
jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
And I think the Jewish people know a few things about “civil rights.”
Peace,
Ed
S
Slavonic
Guest
That’s about helpful as Henry Ford saying “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.”
You’re jumbling a bunch of different things. What gays want is to marry someone following the same rubrics anyone else would use when getting married.
For tax purposes, there’s the joint filer status, too. And let’s not forget Social Security benefits and the ease of estate planning that married couples get enjoy with or without children.
Nor are LGBT folks asking to be declared straight.
Stephen168
New member
Which doesn’t change my point. Change the inequitable laws, not create a legal fiction.
They are asking to be declared married to avoid having to deal with the inequitable laws treating marrieds different than single. Which would also require a conversation about why we have those laws.
Stephen168
New member
What rubrics are they?
C
Crescentinus
Guest
I just hope that Giants is not proselytizing.
S
Slavonic
Guest
OK, I think I get what you’re saying. If I understand correctly, the real problem is that the state gives special treatment to married couples versus single people and the the tangible inequality lies in married versus single not gay versus straight. I would say that while that is so, the other aspect of marriage equality/same-sex marriage is societal recognition of same-sex partnerships, which for supporters for same-sex unions is really the heart of the matter.
The rubrics would be consenting adults of legal age who are not family members who have a relationship with sufficient commitment and trust that the two wish to be married. In other, word just a normal married relationship not mother’s or good friends or siblings or any of other outlandish paring the poster I responded to said.
E
edwest2
Guest
I hope he isn’t either. Honest questions from people who don’t understand or want clarification are great. However, we’re a Church that teaches Jesus Christ died for all men so that sins may be forgiven.
Sometimes, logic applies. And I know there are those who don’t believe there ever was a true man, true God.
All we can do is answer the best we can, but regarding this particular matter, logic does apply. We cannot create legal fictions. That’s not logical either.
Peace,
Ed
E
epan
Guest
I tend to take the 20th, or wait… the 21st century view.
No, wait… maybe I am old fashioned. Sex with someone I don’t love does not appeal to me. I guess I am too fussy to be a Catholic.
E
edwest2
Guest
You’d make a wonderful Catholic:
Friendeship.
Earn each other’s trust.
Shared interests.
Talk about marriage and children.
Engagement.
Getting married and then sex.
Works for the Church.
Peace,
Ed
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Slavonic,
Conform not your mind to the world…it is sad…it is sad…
There is marriage that is sacramental…there is marriage that is not sacramental…there is non-marriage. You are on the wrong side of the fence arguing for something that is “non”.
Yes, the Church and faithful Catholics say marriage is sacramental and not sacramental. There is no divorcing this notion from the mind. To accept non-marriage between two men or two women in the discussion obviates the necessity for seeing marriage as sacramental or not sacramental. The mind does not have to accept any other alternative.
Non-sacramental marriage is between unbaptized persons. This marriage is not between two men and two women. It is a non-sequitor.
There is and can only be Sacramental Marriage, Non-Sacramental Marriage, and Non-Marriage. My mind, the faithful mind should accept no other paradigm as the world does not dictate the rules of the Kingdom. If you are Catholic and in the Kingdom then you gotta understand that outside the Kingdom…it is non-…
- Status