R
rlg94086
Guest
Exactly. Apparently, I need a PhD in order to reason that out though…otherwise, I am just “guessing.”
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
No…it wouldn’t. That is an opinion, but it is not a given.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
To those who support so-called gay marriage:
If gay mariage rulings and laws lead to the Catholic Church being forced to go undergound, would you still support so-called gay marriage?
If gay mariage rulings and laws lead to the Catholic Church being forced to go undergound, would you still support so-called gay marriage?
R
rlg94086
Guest
I am not reducing marriage to procreation. I am saying that the reason it has value to society is procreation. The government sanctions and encourages marriage for the good of society - bearing and raising children. And, again with the “individuals” argument? I thought we covered that.
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, no citation…just hysteria? It was a genuine question. I don’t believe in unjust discrimination; however, I don’t believe that limiting marriage to the traditional definition is unjust discrimination.
Now, do you have a citation from the Constitution, or are you just assuming?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Married couples enjoy many secular privileges and benefits. These privileges and benefits are not always exclusively available to married couples, but some are. For those for whom marriage is not an option, these privileges and benefits might be unobtainable. This is of particular concern to homosexual couples. Same-sex couples can feel the same level of personal commitment that traditional couples feel. It is this sense of commitment, of love, that leads a couple to decide to marry. Because society has long seen homosexual relations as abnormal, there has never been a way for these couples to enjoy the benefits of marriage. As attitudes about homosexuality have changed, homosexuals have become more bold in their assertion of their rights. Since traditional couples can marry, the argument is that homosexual couples should also be able to marry.
“Homosexual advocates seek not to redefine what marriage is for religion. Instead, they seek to modify civil marriage to include them.” There is resistance to this from many religious groups who see marriage as based on sacred practice, and for government to change its definition of marriage is to reduce the sacred value of marriage. Advocates counter that civil marriage is available to many people that any one particular religion would not permit — gay marriage, in this case, is just another of those groups.
Opponents also see marriage having a shaky foundation in its current state, with the loosening of social morals chipping away at marriage bit by bit. They see promiscuity as damaging to children, child support, and to spousal support. They see divorce as a major problem with marriage. The addition of gay marriage to the mix would weaken it even further, perhaps to the point of collapse. Advocates say that marriage would be strengthened by the committed relationships of the gay couples. Problems with child support, spousal support, and divorce would be no worse with gay couples than with traditional couples.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
I am not current on this thread. I read pages of posts last night and this mornig and it got to be too much. I opened the thread and there was your post. Most Europeans are more aware of what is going on in America than Americans. Abortion and Gay rights/marriage is the biggest get out the vote strategy in the history of the world. People get fired up and vote and nothing changes. The next election comes around and the same thing happens all over again. I don’t know when Americans are going to wise up but it doesn’t appear that it will be this election cycle. If we took these two issues off the table, what would one’s personal congressman or senator actually advocate for? Of course what will follow next is that these are the ONLY issues and posters will berate me. But think for a minute, what would your congressperson do if these two issues weren’t available?
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Marriage is not as weak as the media and the left like to say. Couples marrying today stand a 76-78% chance of remaining married for their entire lives. That is less than it should be, but far better than people are told.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
He’d have to concentrate on shrinking government, reducing the national debt, and increasing government transparency… no political future in that.
At any rate, the best way to protest gay *civil *marriage licenses (gay marriage doesn’t actually exist, because it is an oxymoron) would be for Christian couples to refuse to buy civil marriage licenses, thereby completely removing the legitimacy of the government to issue marriage licenses. Turn their license-regime into a mockery, and leave them scrambling to make up the loss of income.
It would save us all money on our tax bills, as well.
D
Dale_M
Guest
If marriage is a right, and another member claimed it was via Loving v Virginia, and the 14th amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, then gay marriage is a constitutional right.
That the culture may demonize some groups (Chinese, gays, Muslims, etc) doesn’t meant that their rights are any less.
C
curtishouse30
Guest
I’m learning about the faith and some of these posts appall me. How can some Catholics agree with same-sex marriage?
Gen 2:24 - “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
CCC Paragraph 2357 - “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
Gen 2:24 - “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
CCC Paragraph 2357 - “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
R
rlg94086
Guest
Again, only if you define marriage differently.
Round and round we go…where do we stop, nobody knows!
E
edwest2
Guest
How is man + man or woman + woman strengthening marriage?
If the State can create “gay marriage” then why can it not confer all the benefits of marriage on gay couples? Here’s why. They don’t want it. As Ellen Degeneres told John McCain on her show, marriage is what it will be.
I am skeptical that gay marriage equals a committed relationship:
nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
God bless,
Ed
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Isn’t there a movement to repeal the 14th amendment. It would kill at least 2 birds with one stone. Ban children born here from being citzens and repeal equal rights under the law. Where is the TeaParty when you need them.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Yep… the question would be “define marriage differently” compared to what?Again, only if you define marriage differently.
Round and round we go…wherever we stop, nobody knows!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You do realize what already happened in other states?
In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a ruling similar to that of the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court. However, the Massachusetts court said that civil union was not enough — the legislature had to allow for marriage. It ruled that even if marriage and some other tailored institution, like civil union, were exactly the same, the difference would create a separate-but-equal situation, and experience has shown that separate is inherently unequal. With this ruling coming from a relatively large state, national debate once again opened up.
Opponents called for a constitutional amendment specifically defining that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. The only two states in the USA which support anything but this are CA and NY
The United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Conclusion…Your gonna see this in the CONSTITUTION of the US
Whats wrongly being construed here is that Proposition 8 is the opinion of the larger part of the USA. Its the minority. And the very fabric of its thinking even there is being challanged. Make no mistake about where the Majority stand on this topic.
In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a ruling similar to that of the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court. However, the Massachusetts court said that civil union was not enough — the legislature had to allow for marriage. It ruled that even if marriage and some other tailored institution, like civil union, were exactly the same, the difference would create a separate-but-equal situation, and experience has shown that separate is inherently unequal. With this ruling coming from a relatively large state, national debate once again opened up.
Opponents called for a constitutional amendment specifically defining that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. The only two states in the USA which support anything but this are CA and NY
The United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Conclusion…Your gonna see this in the CONSTITUTION of the US
Whats wrongly being construed here is that Proposition 8 is the opinion of the larger part of the USA. Its the minority. And the very fabric of its thinking even there is being challanged. Make no mistake about where the Majority stand on this topic.
E
estesbob
Guest
Compared to the definition that is been in use for over 4000 years
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
Homosexuals already do have the right to marry. Not one person has ever been denied a marriage license based on there sexual orientation.
Now, changing marriage to include relationships between people of the same gender is another issue all together.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Oh, brother. You have offered no citationin the Constitution to justify your viewpoint. If you have such quote, please offer it.
The US Constitution does not have a traditional definition" of marriage. At least as far as I am aware. If you think otherwise, I am open to reading your citations.
E
edwest2
Guest
“How can some Catholics agree”? Because they don’t know what their faith teaches and because they don’t think when they hear or read the following from gay advocates:
“Why do you want to take away our happiness?”
“Everyone should have the right to get married.”
“We’re just like heterosexual couples. We fall in love.”
Everyone is called to chastity - everyone. Heterosexuals who have sex outside of marriage risk hell as well.
God bless,
Ed
- Status