Q
- Status
E
ephesians4
Guest
Heterosexual couples can only have equal rights to gay couples when they can play same sex doubles together at tennis.
WHEN WILL THE OPPRESSION OF TENNIS END?! WE DEMAND EQUAL TENNIS! THIS IS EVERY BIT THE SAME AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND SUFFRAGE.
Honestly, has there ever been such an obviously broken and Orwellian use of the language of equality, as “equal” “marriage”?
WHEN WILL THE OPPRESSION OF TENNIS END?! WE DEMAND EQUAL TENNIS! THIS IS EVERY BIT THE SAME AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND SUFFRAGE.
Honestly, has there ever been such an obviously broken and Orwellian use of the language of equality, as “equal” “marriage”?
C
CMatt25
Guest
I’m guessing I “promote” Obama because I believe he is better than the alternative in a 2 party system. Most CAF posters then “promote” the Republican/Tea Party views. Neither camp is perfect. Perfection lies only in heaven. No not yet but the denominations of the Christian communities I am aware of him attending are on my list to consider.
I’m not as concerned about the end of future generations as you are when I consider most people are heterosexual and many reproduce and carry their pregnancies to term and they bring forth children. I am concerned, yes, that people receive things like health care and those in need, things like food, to survive.
The slavery reference was merely to give another example of this country’s civilization changing course. It was practiced in Biblical times and beyond. In the US until this country’s civilization evolved enough to change it. And as with slaves, gays and lesbians are born people too. Slavery became an issue of civil rights and personhood rights. SS marriage is a civil rights issue to me as well. Perhaps as this country changed on slavery, it will do so on SS marriage as well. Because yes I want homosexuals to have as much liberty and pursuit of happiness in this country as heterosexuals.
Of course Christians do not agree on a host of issues. There are Christians on both sides.
With regard to abortion and guns, those aren’t the topic of the thread. So I’ll refrain from replying here about vision and behavior as related to them. God bless and peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Absolutely Catholics have the right to disagree and not to perform SS marriages. What you don’t have the right to do is to forbid others from doing so. Many rights have evolved since the founders. Just to name a few, women, 18 yr olds, and African Americans can now vote, at least if they have the time to sometimes stand for hours in line.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Amen. Well stated Seeker. God bless you. And peace be with you.
F
fix
Guest
Apparently it means the state can abuse its authority and declare square circles exist.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
And in each of those cases, there were compelling arguments as to why the institutions in question should have been changed from their initial configuration. We are talking about the only aspect of an institution that is - pending the examples which have been requested multiple times - universal across every culture throughout the world across the entire span of human history: Marriage involves male and female - not male and male or female and female. Slavery was never universal. Voting was never universal. Discrimination on the basis of race or sex was never universal. When a particular institution has stood the test of time as solidly as marriage only existing between male and female, we have a duty to determine if changing that institution is indeed for the good. Give us some actual evidence that is not based on emotion or sentiment. Show us an argument that doesn’t ring of a spoiled child screaming “I want it!”.
So, again, I ask: Can those advocating for same-sex “marriage” provide single example of a civilization anywhere in the world from the dawn of history to AD2000 that accepted same-sex “marriage” as equal to marriage? If same-sex “marriage” is such a wonderful thing with so many benefits, it follows that it would have been adopted by someone at some point in history, right?
Mark121359
Well-known member
This!..Case closed!
C
CMatt25
Guest
Right. It is being adopted at this point in history.
Your argument seems to be the often repeated argument by those opponents of SS marriage that the “traditional” marriage institution between a male and a female has stood the test of time. What is tradition depends of course though on how far back one is willing to go. The Bible is ripe with examples of 1 man and many wives. And this is certainly not the first thread on CAF about SS marriage. Not by any stretch. It may even be one of the two most discussed topics on the forum. I recall a thread awhile ago where someone posted a chart showing various forms of marriage throughout time. This thread is not about legalizing polygamy though any more than it is about legalizing civil marriage with zoo animals. It is about legalizing SS marriage in *civil *law. Period.
But I think Seeker1961 summed and closed up the case for this thread the best with his words:
“We certainly are not going to change each other’s opinion here and rather than continue to upset you with mine, I’ll wish you a good day. No matter what the final decision on gay marriage is, I am of the opinion that you will continue to believe that it is wrong and that you will never be forced to marry a gay person.”
Well stated.
God’s blessings to you and to all. And whether gay or straight, regardless of whom they love on God’s earth, peace to all.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Just because the Bible records polygamous marriage does not mean God approves of itRight. It is being adopted at this point in history.
Your argument seems to be the often repeated argument by those opponents of SS marriage that the “traditional” marriage institution between a male and a female has stood the test of time. What is tradition depends of course though on how far back one is willing to go. The Bible is ripe with examples of 1 man and many wives. And this is certainly not the first thread on CAF about SS marriage. Not by any stretch. It may even be one of the two most discussed topics on the forum. I recall a thread awhile ago where someone posted a chart showing various forms of marriage throughout time. This thread is not about legalizing polygamy though any more than it is about legalizing civil marriage with zoo animals. It is about legalizing SS marriage in *civil *law. Period.
But I think Seeker1961 summed and closed up the case for this thread the best with his words:
“We certainly are not going to change each other’s opinion here and rather than continue to upset you with mine, I’ll wish you a good day. No matter what the final decision on gay marriage is, I am of the opinion that you will continue to believe that it is wrong and that you will never be forced to marry a gay person.”
Well stated.
God’s blessings to you and to all. And whether gay or straight, regardless of whom they love on God’s earth, peace to all.
Deuteronomy 17:16-17 says a man not should not have multiple wives and God’s intention for marriage is said in Genesis 2:24
It does not say anything about same sex couples or multiple wives
Read the OT and see the strife caused by the nature of the polygamous marriages: idolatry, jealousy among wives, favouritism
Monogamy Reduces Major Social Problems of Polygamist Cultures
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And none of those “rights” have a thing to do with SS which isn’t a right. And Obamas agenda compares to none of the founding fathers in fact its opposite and in world history.
Amen, and no-one forbid anyone from anything. I appeal to the history of Jesus Christ and His wisdom through prayer.
Gods Word and through His Church has spoken clearly. Any excuse will do to rationalize their teaching also, as we see. And only to appeal to some fleeting unfounded ideal rooted in no positive value historically for society.
And life?..
infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
Real simple SS and Abortion equals NO LIFE.
And yes I do believe Obamas agenda is a blatant transgression against God and Country and by appealing to those who he can easily “control”. Like those scared teens who run to an Abortion Clinic’s. As many who engage in SS and life altering change behind emotional trauma. Like those committed to welfare with no hope of productive employment because Obama spends to much time on exactly what we are now talking about instead of the Economy. Like those who have a vision of a better USA but they place their faith in a man who has paralyzed them with hope which isn’t coming.
Where is the Dream he sold America 5-years later?
And the comparison of Obama to great Civil Rights leaders of this country is another false image which is another lie sold to those paralyzed by unfounded hope. Great Civil leaders free people not place them in invisible handcuffs with an unfounded idea of freedom.
Gay marriage
"Although in general the Romans regarded marriage as a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing children, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded. Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between men as something that occurs not infrequently, although they disapprove of it.[117] Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal’s satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.[118] As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear.[119]
Various ancient sources state that the emperor Nero celebrated two public weddings with men, once taking the role of the bride (with a freedman Pythagoras), and once the groom (with Sporus); there may have been a third in which he was the bride.[120] The ceremonies included traditional elements such as a dowry and the wearing of the Roman bridal veil.[121] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. Other mature men at his court had husbands, or said they had husbands in imitation of the emperor.[122] Although the sources are in general hostile, Dio Cassius implies that Nero’s stage performances were regarded as more scandalous than his marriages to men.[123]
The earliest reference in Latin literature to a marriage between men occurs in the Philippics of Cicero, who insulted Mark Antony for being a slut in his youth until Curio “established you in a fixed and stable marriage (matrimonium), as if he had given you a stola,” the traditional garment of a married woman.[124] Although Cicero’s sexual implications are clear, the point of the passage is to cast Antony in the submissive role in the relationship and to impugn his manhood in various ways; there is no reason to think that actual marriage rites were performed.[125]" Wiki-Pedia
Is this the same Christianity you follow? The one where Jesus Christ established His Church on Earth? Is this the Christianity you follow. I’m just checking since you bought up this fleeting idea of todays Christianity. Is what your saying is its a “different” Christianity from the one Christ established on earth?
NOTE…“As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear” That’s what Jesus Christ did. What Nero did is also noted above. [Even as evil as the Roman empire was there is no documentation of marriage rites performed]
Christianized did you read that? So all Christians were wrong historically and our ultra educated modern Christians figured out the Truth, or rationalized the Truth to excuse what they deem acceptable in Christs Kingdom?
This is nothing new historically. Factual, documented by one of the greatest empires in the known world. In fact the intent of Union is life and a indication of the Trinity thus the HS dwelling within.
So yes I do disagree as a Christian, and as an American who has a deep respect for my brothers and sisters who unselfishly blazed this trail
Equal rights is acceptance in this model, all are accepted, but to promote this is a very different ideal, its “Thy Will”, not my will.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Creator/unalienable rights= Not to be separated, They are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights. And the word “certain” is there for good reason.
God first, not country then God. Its one nation “under God” indivisible. Established by our Christian founding fathers.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Secular relevance under the false premise of God.Right. It is being adopted at this point in history.
God’s blessings to you and to all. And whether gay or straight, regardless of whom they love on God’s earth, peace to all.
It being promoted in this time in history as it was promoted in Rome at their time in history. How did it work out?
Where does this reside in Gods teaching within the NT and historically? It doesn’t, for it is a passing temporal vanity as it was in Rome.
“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew
The Union of One flesh =Life. Was this way from the beginning no? One Flesh exemplifies the life giving Trinity through His love. Union of Man+Woman= Life, a very triune model given as a gift from the creator.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
E
epan
Guest
I don’t think that adding absurdity to the argument furthers anything useful. It does cause rational people to dismiss otherwise reasonable arguments.
J
JackieMom
Guest
I’m a Catholic who believes same-sex marriage is not God’s plan for families. Having said that - very few people are gay, and even fewer of those are seeking to marry. Frankly, I do not see how them doing so seriously affects me, what I teach my kids, our household, or our faith. I am concerned for those people, and I do not think their kids have ideal family situations - but ultimately this affects a very small percentage of the population. A percentage that was living together and sexually active anyway. Nothing will change except the paperwork.
Now - let’s talk about divorce. Over half of marriages end in it. Many divorcees go on to remarry and create second families. It is not unusual for kids to grow up in a “yours, mine and ours” household, on both sides, being shuttled to and from and knowing that they really belong nowhere because mom and dad have new honeys and new babies that are the permenant factor in the home. It is considered normal for kids to have step parents and step siblings, as well as half siblings and “my former step mom’s new baby with her third husband” siblings, etc. it is normal for children to live in a world where they know the likelihood is that their family will cease to exist at some point. Divorce rips actual families apart. It destroys children. And very, very few people who divorce follow Catholic teaching about no dating or remarriage. This is why, more than homosexuality, Jesus preached against it. It is a massive, destructive problem!
But, we all accept that divorce is common and here to stay. I don’t see Catholics outside of the courthouse protesting divorces, or publicly denouncing second marriages. I don’t see the outrage and the indignation that seems to accompany “gay marriage” arguments, and I wonder why. I think divorce is FAR more harmful to individuals, kids and society. It is FAR more rampant. It is FAR more costly. It is FAR more “in your face.” And it is FAR more difficult to avoid. Where is the outrage when we see a TV character date after a divorce that we show when we see a woman kiss another woman? Where is the shunning of divorced family memers that we see happen to gay ones? Where is the panic about our kids being “exposed” to divorced people? Where are the anti-divorce bumper stickers? Where are the CAF threads on how we can stop divorce once and for all?
Frankly, it is easier to pretend our biggest problem is the 2-3% of the population that is gay, and the even smaller number of that group that may want to marry - when in fact the undoing of the American family and the real-time destruction of children happens thousands of times every day, in all of our neighborhoods and all of our families. When we, as Catholics, have the courage to take up the cause of divorce, then maybe I can get on board with the hysteria over gay marriage. For now, I think we have a much bigger and more insidious problem on our hands.
Now - let’s talk about divorce. Over half of marriages end in it. Many divorcees go on to remarry and create second families. It is not unusual for kids to grow up in a “yours, mine and ours” household, on both sides, being shuttled to and from and knowing that they really belong nowhere because mom and dad have new honeys and new babies that are the permenant factor in the home. It is considered normal for kids to have step parents and step siblings, as well as half siblings and “my former step mom’s new baby with her third husband” siblings, etc. it is normal for children to live in a world where they know the likelihood is that their family will cease to exist at some point. Divorce rips actual families apart. It destroys children. And very, very few people who divorce follow Catholic teaching about no dating or remarriage. This is why, more than homosexuality, Jesus preached against it. It is a massive, destructive problem!
But, we all accept that divorce is common and here to stay. I don’t see Catholics outside of the courthouse protesting divorces, or publicly denouncing second marriages. I don’t see the outrage and the indignation that seems to accompany “gay marriage” arguments, and I wonder why. I think divorce is FAR more harmful to individuals, kids and society. It is FAR more rampant. It is FAR more costly. It is FAR more “in your face.” And it is FAR more difficult to avoid. Where is the outrage when we see a TV character date after a divorce that we show when we see a woman kiss another woman? Where is the shunning of divorced family memers that we see happen to gay ones? Where is the panic about our kids being “exposed” to divorced people? Where are the anti-divorce bumper stickers? Where are the CAF threads on how we can stop divorce once and for all?
Frankly, it is easier to pretend our biggest problem is the 2-3% of the population that is gay, and the even smaller number of that group that may want to marry - when in fact the undoing of the American family and the real-time destruction of children happens thousands of times every day, in all of our neighborhoods and all of our families. When we, as Catholics, have the courage to take up the cause of divorce, then maybe I can get on board with the hysteria over gay marriage. For now, I think we have a much bigger and more insidious problem on our hands.
D
Dawnia
Guest
So…we should let one evil slide because another evil happens? Gay marriage is something that is a current fight. Divorce was a previous fight…that apparently was lost a long time ago. (Prior to no fault divorce, there was still a divorce rate of around 20%)
No one has the threat of discrimination suits or job loss or vandalism or violence against them if they speak out against divorce. Because frankly no one, but a minority of Catholics, seems to care what the Church’s position is on divorce. There is no threat of there being legislation to change it any time soon.
And divorce is loosing it’s impact on society with the ever increasing amount of people skipping marriage completely. It’s already to the point that people already see marriage as “nothing but a piece of paper”. What’s the point of getting married if it doesn’t mean anything?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I don’t disagree with much of your thinking. Nevertheless how individuals think in regards to marriage first in the Church, is how they will view divorce. This doesn’t change Church teaching and the fact there are also a very large percent who do understand the teaching and follow it. have followed it, and are a testimony to the life bearing God. Also how we arrived where we are now is reflective of many issues in society which have been on-going. Abortion is very good example from the 70s with the very alright thinking.
And no if I magnify an issue its because others minimize it. This is how all these issues arise we minimize what is relevant to us in the Church as individuals, this becomes promoted by one of those who minimized the teaching and at some point we have a social issue we call popular “opinion”. Be it todays insanity of divorce and the family, abortion, or SS. We give ourselves permission to re-interpret what Christ once and for all spoke with public revelation. Truth is there is no changing it and we would be foolish to think so. I mean the social political history of all this is documented. We are not a superior advanced Christian people in this period. Nothing here is unprecedented.
Saying we have an issue in our opinion, that’s bigger than the next one, doesn’t diminish the other is still an issue.
The issue with Obama in relation to the above is he promotes this and abortion since we are speaking more general also, he is way out of control.
As a Christian this is a no brainer in the Catholic and all the Apostolic Church’s and most of those who trace their roots to Christianity.and believe in the seven ecumenical councils. Even if one is to say I don’t believe in the Latin Church. Surely you also can’t ignore the others. Why is there a Christian who can rationalize all this Biblically elsewhere?
Lets face it your either really believe or you really don’t would be my general response.
And no if I magnify an issue its because others minimize it. This is how all these issues arise we minimize what is relevant to us in the Church as individuals, this becomes promoted by one of those who minimized the teaching and at some point we have a social issue we call popular “opinion”. Be it todays insanity of divorce and the family, abortion, or SS. We give ourselves permission to re-interpret what Christ once and for all spoke with public revelation. Truth is there is no changing it and we would be foolish to think so. I mean the social political history of all this is documented. We are not a superior advanced Christian people in this period. Nothing here is unprecedented.
Saying we have an issue in our opinion, that’s bigger than the next one, doesn’t diminish the other is still an issue.
The issue with Obama in relation to the above is he promotes this and abortion since we are speaking more general also, he is way out of control.
As a Christian this is a no brainer in the Catholic and all the Apostolic Church’s and most of those who trace their roots to Christianity.and believe in the seven ecumenical councils. Even if one is to say I don’t believe in the Latin Church. Surely you also can’t ignore the others. Why is there a Christian who can rationalize all this Biblically elsewhere?
Lets face it your either really believe or you really don’t would be my general response.
Mark121359
Well-known member
Exactly. I cringe when I see so many Catholics shrug off same-sex marriage as if there’s no harm that such a small minority wants to marry and be happy. How in the world does that affect me they say! They forget how powerful the radical element of this movement truly is. Just do a simple google search and see how persecution of priests and indeed our Church are already underway in many places in the world. And most frightening just to our north in Canada. What will these "sympathetic" Catholics response be when Christ’s Church is under siege on all fronts by the militant elements of this movement?
P
pete_29
Guest
I will guarantee, if gay marriage become law, some gay couples will sue churches and some judges will rule favorably for these lawsuits. When that happens, I wonder what the justification of certain individuals will be?
- Status