Question about Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

Many who are miserable in marriages out there right now would never get a divorce for fear of what the neighbors would say or they couldn’t go to communion.

Who says they couldn’t go to communion?

 

[MALACHYONE]

Grace & Peace!

Peter, I think you need to be slightly more nuanced here. No–marriage is not a right. Yes–marriage is a sacrament. But–what else is marriage? In the eyes of a state, it is a contractual agreement.

No, the state has no right to govern sacraments, but yes, a state has every right to oversee contracts.

What is often forgotten is that the contractual view of marriage is the most ancient, culturally. It had more to do with building alliances, controlling wealth, property, territory, etc. The degree to which marriages were contracted and dissolved for political purposes throughout history is testament to this fundamental fact of marriage. With the advent of the courtly love tradition and the invention of romance, the prospect of a loving relationship actually occurring within a marriage became a possibility and ultimately an expectation (see, for instance, the legends and writings of the times–Tristan and Isolde is a good example: love is for relationships outside marriage, and love is dangerous because it can lead you to break the marriage contract). With the expectation of romantic love (and not merely usefulness) in marriage, the cultural understanding of it began to shift–marriage, the sacrament, came to be seen as the crowning ritual act of a loving relationship, not merely the church’s stamp of approval.

With this shift in the understanding of marriage, other people in loving relationships desired to have their relationships crowned by the sacrament–a desire which would not have occurred to our ancestors–love itself was never the sole reason to get married. Now, more often than not, it is.

However, the state, in the midst of all this, never stopped governing contracts. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, remained a contract. The state has nothing to do with love, nothing to do with sacraments. It helps enforce contracts.

BUT, people began to confuse the contract with the romantic sentiment with the sacrament. These things need to be sorted out. And the easiest way to do this would be to leave contractual matters to the state and sacramental matters to the spiritual authorities. The idea of voting on the definition of marriage is absolutely and totally ludicrous (as is voting on the definition of any sacrament). It’s just too surreal. Sacraments are not up for voting. Equally ridiculous in this day and age is denying the contractual benefits and liabilities of the state contract to loving couples who want to enter into it–particularly if this denial is on religious grounds! The contract is between the couple and the state, not the couple and the state’s constituency. (Really, if the people of a state are to be asked to vote on what the marriage contract means, shouldn’t they also vote on the terms of all other state-governed contracts? Shouldn’t the terms of my cell-phone agreement be up for a vote?)

Let the church, the synagogue, the mosque, the temple, decide for their communities what marriage means, and let the state deal with the contract.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!

GREAT JOB MARK!!

FINALLY, a very scholarly and lucid discussion of the separation of Church and State and as it applies to same sex marriages.

The spiritual beliefs go to the variant churches to make and advocate, and the legal contracts to the government without prejudice.

For those just studying this subject and those still a bit confused and admit it (which is one of the greatest strengths of mankind if they can do it) Mark has really hit the mark for some clarifications.

This is more like the discussions you would hear if you delved deeply into human sexuality and society etc, Nobody trying to take away your beliefs (the belief in the sacrament etc. or ----nobody disparagiing them).

This we must do.

 

[MALACHYONE]

St. Paul disagreed.

And forgiveness for mortal sins is readily and easily available through confession.

Paul was a man then I profoundly disagree with.

Here the bugles! Here come the bible thumpers, spewing their religious quotations, and feelings, love and affection and caring go out the religious window, as always.

 

[MALACHYONE]

Paul was a man then I profoundly disagree with.

Here the bugles! Here come the bible thumpers, spewing their religious quotations, and feelings, love and affection and caring go out the religious window, as always.

Kevin, your mortal sins and mine would not be alike it is clear.
But thats between you and your church, keep the rest of us out of it that do not agree.

It was once my Church too, gung ho bugle blower too, and all I want now is for the Church to learn from we the people.

SEE THE POSTING ON HERE BY MARK.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

GREAT JOB MARK!!

[FINALLY, a very scholarly and lucid discussion of the separation of Church and State and as it applies to same sex marriages.

The spiritual beliefs go to the variant churches to make and advocate, and the legal contracts to the government without prejudice.

For those just studying this subject and those still a bit confused and admit it (which is one of the greatest strengths of mankind if they can do it) Mark has really hit the mark for some clarifications.

This is more like the discussions you would hear if you delved deeply into human sexuality and society etc, Nobody trying to take away your beliefs (the belief in the sacrament etc. or ----nobody disparagiing them).

This we must do.

Interesting, but irrelevant.

There are two simultaneous debates about Gay Marriage:

One is from the Church’s teaching, and clearly, the Church can’t change Marriage because she does not have the ability to alter any of the Sacraments.

The other argument is a societal one, and both religious people and non-religious people collectively determine societal norms and laws. An argument can be made, easily I might add, that there is no reason to change the definition of marriage and subsequent laws to include homosexual unions because there is little or no benefit to society in doing so.

As far as your constant comments about the Church excluding gays, acting in an unloving manner, etc.; your rant has nothing to do with the Church stance on the sinfulness of homosexual acts and the Sacrament of Marriage. People with attraction to the same sex are welcome at the table. However, like all of us, they must be in a state of grace. This is the reason we all have access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

You didn’t answer my question about the Eucharist. Do you believe it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
[/quote]

 

[MALACHYONE]

Only because marriage was instituted between two different genders. That’s why you can’t participate in the marriage part. However, all friendships and all close relationships without sex are nevertheless holy and in themselves blessed, though not sacramentally. (“Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.”) When you love each other non-physically, you love Christ and are united with the Body of Christ in that communion of friendship.

While there are 7 (still 7? ) Sacraments with a capital S, we should treat our daily associations with others sacramentally with a small ‘s’. Certainly the Saints did. In this way we sanctify the everyday and make Christ present.

All Christians are called to chastity, relative to their legitimate state. Single straight people who are physically attracted to each other are denied a sexual expression. There may even be impediments to their marriage which disallow that ultimate union. Even if the individuals eventually marry others, they may never find those marriages quite as fulfilllng as that former one. Yet even the most fulfilling human relationship is a weak and incomplete shadow of the most intimate relationship of all: our individual relationship with God, which brings us blessings & graces not just eventually, but now.

Intelligent and worth reading, but I believe you would improve what you have to offer others in this area if you spoke in the two areas related to marriage: the government or Civil and the Religious
without denigrating either.

READ THE POST OF MARK ON HERE. TERRIFIC AND WOULD MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TERRIFIC ALWAYS, ALL WAYS.

 

[MALACHYONE]

Are you the authority?

No, and neither are you.

 

[MALACHYONE]

Marriage is *not *a right under government. Just like driving, it requires a license. The license can be denied to someone who is not fit to be married - for instance, someone who is already married, or (in some states) someone who has certain STDs.

Also, in this country, the majority rules. The courts should not override majority rule unless it is ***clearly ***unconstitutional.

If the majority decides that a marriage license does not apply to homosexuals, then it should be the law.

The problem lies in the right to the “pursuit of happiness.” This right is subordinate to the good of the people. (And, it’s not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.) Robbers and burglars are certainly pursuing happiness. But when we catch them, we deprive them of the right of liberty, for the good of the rest of us. You may not pursue happiness if it injures me, and vice versa.

So we have to ask the question if homosexual unions benefit the rest of us.

The Church answers this question “No.” That’s enough for me.

And don’t ***dare ***call me a homophobe!

God bless us all,

Ruthie

I believe if you indeed were NOT homophobic, you would not reach this far to go against a government contract of marriage between homosexuals.

What you did is nicely did, but you end up with nothing at all more than your opinion, AND BASED ON RELIGION.

You show(ed) your true colors by immediately going for your killer point, ie, “what the Church says is good enough for me.”

I believe that thinking for yourself will stand you in better stead. You see, the Church that you just want to believe because they say it, would have us all relating to a flat world. And our beloved Church is equally far off on the issue of homosexual marriage.

And me thinks thou protests too much about not being homophobic. Just because you say(you are not) it doesn’t make it true, does it? An innocent one, MAYBE , but one at any rate.

 

[MALACHYONE]

Love was not instituted by secular society. What mother or father does not love their child? So, since ancient times, the two people responsible for bringing life into the world have cared for their children and each other.

Here is the Catholic perspective on this issue:

americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0304.asp

Ed, you mean well, but that is absolutely untrue. Read what Mark says about love on these posts, please.

The Irish, like other ethnic groups, in ancient days didn’t marry for love; often didn’t marry, but if so, did so for land and contractual affairs.

The top families in Ireland fostered their children out for someone else to do the mundane rearing things; they didn’t connect love with it at all.

God Bless you too,

God bless,
Ed

 

[MALACHYONE]

No, Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a sacrament. A gift from God to help us come in closer union to him. Since same-sex couples cannot come closer to God through any type of union with each other, they could never obtain a valid Marriage.

The reader of the above should understand that this is just one answer from this one’s religious beliefs, period.

The government, thank God, is not going to adhere to this person’s religious beliefs, or anyone elses, please God.

 

[Kevin42]

Paul was a man then I profoundly disagree with.

Here the bugles! Here come the bible thumpers, spewing their religious quotations, and feelings, love and affection and caring go out the religious window, as always.

The Bible is the Word of God, and God is love. How you have reasoned that my love and caring go out the window is beyond me.

 

[MALACHYONE]

I apologize for giving my brief answer. Marriage is a sacrament given by God long before legal contracts came into being. Marriage itself should have nothing to do with anything that can be governed by men. If two people join their household for companionship and/or financial reasons, the states can decide if they have the right to tax and insurance benefits. The states can decide if the two people are old enough, capable enough, the right color, or the right gender, etc. This however has nothing to do with Marriage.

The problem is when people consider Marriage as a means to achieve benefits which they consider to be rights.

Years ago, I knew of a couple that were best friends. One male and one female. They were both gay. They decided to get married, simple in order for her to get his health benefits because she was ill, and “for the adventure of it”. While they did love each other, they never intended to consumate their relationship, or even remain faithful to each other. They were merely using the institution to take advantage of the situation. Even though the marriage could have been valid since they were of opposing genders, it was not a sacrament since they were undertaking it under false pretenses.

Interesting story, but thousands have married for the same reason, ie, one gay, one lesbian, or variations of sexual preference, for the reason you mention.

The last I knew personally was an Episcopalian priest and a heterosexual lady who just wanted to be helpful in his being able to be fulfilled as a pastor. He is now divorced, they had one child, and he is healthier by l00 times than all those years of pretending; as he is able to end his life with the person he trully loves. He used to appear sickly all the time. The child was apparently his gift to wife for her kindness.

Separate your religious views from our goverment functions and I think you will ultimately be able to help people alot on this.
Dogmatic views that are totally religious beliefs need to be identified as that, owning your own personal beliefs, and not put out as some law for everyone.

God Bless.

 

[MALACHYONE]

No, Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a sacrament. A gift from God to help us come in closer union to him. Since same-sex couples cannot come closer to God through any type of union with each other, they could never obtain a valid Marriage.

Note that this is strictly a religious belief, not a fact. That is well and good too.

But, not everyone embraces your personal religious beliefs, and out of respect for them, try not to come out as THE DECIDER.

 

[MALACHYONE]

No, there’s not more. I already said it, several times. I’m intersexed and a transsexual. That’s the ‘more to the sob-story’

So I should not have the right to dictate my desires in medical situations? The rights of my family trump my own personal rights of self determination? You seem to be forgetting that not everyone is on good terms with their family. What if the family was abusive? Would their rights be supreme, even when they’re abusive?

GREAT REPLIES TO SOMEONE WHO JUST HASN’T HAD EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE IN YOUR AREA.

You certainly are digging your heels in and patiently responding to this person; I couldn’t have been so patient.

 

[MALACHYONE]

The Bible is the Word of God, and God is love. How you have reasoned that my love and caring go out the window is beyond me.

No disrespect as I didn’t put my firm belief charitably.

But, you remind me of William Jenning Bryan in the Scopes trial when presented with rational ideas by the great Clarence Darrow.

As Darrow did, I respect your sincerety, but come on, when presented with facts, one must do more than throw bible quotations back.

When anyone catigates, demeans, denies dignity, of worthwhileness to another human being by throwing biblical quotations at them, their love and caring went out the window. See?

God Bless

 

[MALACHYONE]

No, and neither are you.

For the person who wanted to know if I was the authority on this, ie, homosexual/heterosexual marriage, and marriage in general, i would truthfully reply YES

I spent over forty years in study, with eight years of basic college, and with hundreds of hours of seminars in and around this area.

I don’t say I am the only authority in reply to your insult, but I do say I am ONE and with many good credentials.

Just read the ideas and relate back to them specifically. I can handle that, but not the knee jerk derision of your response.

You see, this isn’t just fun and games with me. I am not gay, but it is a personal subject and yes, I can and will get worked up about it, but will always try to stay focused and stick with ideas.

 

[Kevin42]

No disrespect as I didn’t put my firm belief charitably.

But, you remind me of William Jenning Bryan in the Scopes trial when presented with rational ideas by the great Clarence Darrow.

As Darrow did, I respect your sincerety, but come on, when presented with facts, one must do more than throw bible quotations back.

When anyone catigates, demeans, denies dignity, of worthwhileness to another human being by throwing biblical quotations at them, their love and caring went out the window. See?

God Bless

I in no way have done any of the things that you stated above. Unfortunately, I know all to well what it means to be outcast and not accepted by many of your peers and people you thought were your friends because of who you are. I thank God though that I have experienced this, because otherwise I may have very well been a person who demeans and lacks charity towards others. I hope that you can see that although we have different views when it comes to some ideas about love, rational ideas, and truth, that I offer no less love to anyone than I can give. Although I fail frequently, I do my best to see Jesus in everyone I come across and to treat them as if I were standing before Our Lord. I do my best to offer everyone Love and Truth.

Peace and good.

 

[DLT]

If the government allows two people of the same sex to “marry”, what’s to stop two brothers from marrying, or a sister and a brother, or two sisters, two men and a woman, or vice versa, and on and on? It would open the door to a totally disordered society.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Intelligent and worth reading, but I believe you would improve what you have to offer others in this area if you spoke in the two areas related to marriage: the government or Civil and the Religious
without denigrating either.

READ THE POST OF MARK ON HERE. TERRIFIC AND WOULD MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TERRIFIC ALWAYS, ALL WAYS.

I don’t understand your point. I’m not “denigrating” either.

Also, I have spoken extensively on other threads about this topic, regarding civil vs. religious.

The poster to whom I replied was in this case looking sincerely, I felt, for affirmation and comfort about the validity of a joint Christian journey with a “partner.” My comments were restricted to that aspect, rather than a general debate about the aspects of gay marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

Separate your religious views from our goverment functions

To paraphrase philosopher Peter Kreeft: separating God from marriage is like separating Shakespeare from Romeo and Juliet for, as Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “God is the author and designer of marriage.”

That is why marriage is naturally connected to religion. And why religious ideology regarding marriage cannot be separated from the sociological implications/governmental functions of marriage.

Dogmatic views that are totally religious beliefs need to be identified as that, owning your own personal beliefs, and not put out as some law for everyone.

Wow. Is that your dogmatic observation?