Response to gay marriage video?

[christopher10]

funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Somebody sent me this link, and asked me to watch and tell them what I thought. Considering they already know exactly what I think about this issue, they were clearly trying to make an argument for gay marriage based on this video.

So my question is, how should I respond? If I’m going to say it is sinful (he claims to be a Christian), where in the Bible is this supported? And I have seen passages about it in the Old Testament, but many things in the Old Testament are negated because the prophecies have been fulfilled and what not. So how do we know which ones remain?

 

[Dirk_Skene]

You may be wanting to respond with a “civil” answer so I don’t blame you if you don’t take my advise.

My responce is this: “A stupid stage play does not make homosexual behaviour OK. Wrong is wrong. 2 of the same sex cannot marry. Conversation over.”

 

[Mrschocolate42]

I watched a few minutes of the link you included. I didn’t have the sound on because my children were in the room but from the visual this looks like a parady that makes fun of both sides of the issue. It seemed to make characatures of both pro Prop 8 people and anti Prop 8 people. I assume this video was in support of gay marriage. It seems from this that your friend isn’t asking for a serious discussion of the issue. The video isn’t serious in nature. After all, Jack Black is in it!!!

That being said, I think calm reason could still be part of the discussion. The bible is not our only source for our beliefs. Sacred Tradition serves us well as Catholics. JPII’s teaching on the Theology of the Body will help to explain any details based upon our salvation history. The lfacts that everyone should agree upon are these 1) two men together or two women together do not compliment each other they match each other. 2) They are not seeking out what is lacking in themselves but seeing what is the same about themselves. 3) They cannot create life from their union. Their love is of this time only. They do not cooperate with God’s plan for creation by their union. Their love is not fruitful in the way that God intended by making us male and female. They separate the body from the spiritual reality of what we were created for. These differences are not spoken of in our culture because everyone is afraid that it isn’t “politically correct”. These differences, however, make their relationships different then marriage. It does not mean that they do not love each other. It is not, however, what they were intended to be by God.

I approach my pro-gay friends and family by being loving and kind but firm in the facts. God established male and female as the two beings that were supposed to be a couple (Genesis). The fact that the only time homosexuality is mentioned in the bible it is spoken of as sin should also be a point of fact (somewhere in the NT by Paul). So the Bible defines people as male and female and also speaks of homosexuality as sinful and defined as being a behavior practiced by non-Jews and non-Christians. They are the “other”. Paul speaks to early Christians and tells them that though they used to practice some of these behaviors they know better now that they have become one in the flesh of Christ.

It is not within the power of our church or our popes tochange the way the world was established or the way in which scripture has been interpreted for thousands of years. That is what pro-gay people want to do.

Every pope would confirm that our mission as the church is not to make the rules but to tell the rules as God established. We are to evangelize the truth as it has been established by God. No matter how this might hurt “good people” we do not do anyone a favor by making them feel ok for living half of a life. I love my gay friends and am very respectful. But if they ask me what I think I’ll tell them the truth. They were made for greater things then they are choosing.

Love in Christ,

Mrs. Chocolate

 

[neat62]

christopher10;

Tell them that they have the “right” to get married already. Any man has the “right” to marry any woman that will have him, as per the definition of marriage.

 

[JimG]

Marriage is an institution by which one man and one woman commit their lives to one another so that they can procreate children who wil have a mom and a dad. It has worked well since the dawn of civilization. No society has attempted to mess with it much until now. Why mess with what works?

 

[neat62]

JimG;

Why mess with what works?

Because you cannot destroy it, without messing with it.

 

[Genesian]

To be honest, I really enjoyed the video. I am a musical theatre junkie, and the songs were tuneful and cleverly written. This is an issue that I am typically silent about partially because I am in an industry and community which is full of gay people, many of whom are my very close friends, and partially because I’m not entirely sure where I stand on the issue.

As for gay marriage specifically, I am totally and unquestionably against it. I believe that marriage is a sacrament reserved for one man and one woman, period. However, I am torn because I do believe that same-sex partners should receive certain legal and civil benefits. I know several same sex couples who have been together for many, many years, and one in particular has even raised two wonderful special needs children. While these two men are living a gravely and inherently sinful lifestyle, they are not otherwise any more or less sinful than the next people, and in fact are more than decent human beings. Yes, one mortal sin is all damnation takes; this I know. But, in the event that one of these two men becomes sick or is in the hospital, the other has no legal right to visitation, nor does he receive insurance benefits. I do not think this is just. Marriage is out of the question, and to be honest, I don’t know a single gay person who actually wants to get married, but I do think that there are same-sex couples that should receive the legal and civil benefits given to married couples.

That digression aside, the argument the video makes is totally and completely absurd, and is a text book example of the “straw man fallacy.” It offers only two sides to the issue of gay marriage: tolerance (a.k.a. hagiograpy of the gay lifestyle) or bigotry. There are, in fact, other views. The video makes the assertion that the motivating factor behind Proposition 8 was hatred, which is simply not true.

This brings me to a “soapbox issue” of mine, which is the word homophobia. I absolutely loathe it. Not only is it a linguistic travesty (homophobia actually means “fear of monotony”), but it is utterly patronizing. First, it makes no distinction between fear and hate, attitudes which, while not wholly unrelated, are very different. I hate Lima beans and poetry slams, but I am by no means afraid of either; I am afraid of spiders and heights, but I do not hate them. Second, the term is applied to anything that does not fit into the gay progressive agenda. Third, it’s dismissive; an accusation of homophobia is used as a discussion-ender and a declaration of victory, “you’re just homophobic, end of discussion.”

In conclusion, the video is amusing and clever, but is a poor way to condemn Proposition 8.

 

[neat62]

To be honest, I really enjoyed the video. I am a musical theatre junkie, and the songs were tuneful and cleverly written. This is an issue that I am typically silent about partially because I am in an industry and community which is full of gay people, many of whom are my very close friends, and partially because I’m not entirely sure where I stand on the issue.

As for gay marriage specifically, I am totally and unquestionably against it. I believe that marriage is a sacrament reserved for one man and one woman, period. However, I am torn because I do believe that same-sex partners should receive certain legal and civil benefits. I know several same sex couples who have been together for many, many years, and one in particular has even raised two wonderful special needs children. While these two men are living a gravely and inherently sinful lifestyle, they are not otherwise any more or less sinful than the next people, and in fact are more than decent human beings. Yes, one mortal sin is all damnation takes; this I know. But, in the event that one of these two men becomes sick or is in the hospital, the other has no legal right to visitation, nor does he receive insurance benefits. I do not think this is just. Marriage is out of the question, and to be honest, I don’t know a single gay person who actually wants to get married, but I do think that there are same-sex couples that should receive the legal and civil benefits given to married couples.

That digression aside, the argument the video makes is totally and completely absurd, and is a text book example of the “straw man fallacy.” It offers only two sides to the issue of gay marriage: tolerance (a.k.a. hagiograpy of the gay lifestyle) or bigotry. There are, in fact, other views. The video makes the assertion that the motivating factor behind Proposition 8 was hatred, which is simply not true.

This brings me to a “soapbox issue” of mine, which is the word homophobia. I absolutely loathe it. Not only is it a linguistic travesty (homophobia actually means “fear of monotony”), but it is utterly patronizing. First, it makes no distinction between fear and hate, attitudes which, while not wholly unrelated, are very different. I hate Lima beans and poetry slams, but I am by no means afraid of either; I am afraid of spiders and heights, but I do not hate them. Second, the term is applied to anything that does not fit into the gay progressive agenda. Third, it’s dismissive; an accusation of homophobia is used as a discussion-ender and a declaration of victory, “you’re just homophobic, end of discussion.”

In conclusion, the video is amusing and clever, but is a poor way to condemn Proposition 8.

Civil Unions are the same as marriage, just with a lawyers touch added. If granted, the gay’s will use the term “marriage” to brag about a victory against the religious.

 

[Genesian]

Civil unions do not happen in a church, and they are not sacramental.

 

[Genesian]

Hey, christopher10, I just realized that no one has yet answered your initial question. Yes, it is sinful, and is specifically mentioned by Paul in Romans 1:18-28 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. It also goes against the Catechism and natural law. That’s another issue I take with the argument in the video, the condemnation of gay acts is not just in Leviticus.

 

[neat62]

Civil unions do not happen in a church, and they are not sacramental.

Not all marriages are done in a Church. But even if the gays get Civil Unions, they will call them marriages. Plus, one day, the Church will be forced to marry gay’s.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021005.html

pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=15700

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church’s-first-gay-'wedding’.html

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26456

articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/17/news/mn-43827

boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/10/unitarians_prepare_to_marry_gays/

queensspeech.com/conversations/365-gay-news/calif_pastors_defy_church_marry_gay_couples

blog.protectmarriageequality.com/2008/06/30/first-gay-couple-in-iceland-to-marry-in-church/

bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Church-Weddings-for-Gays-Soon-a-Reality-in-Sweden-22339-1/

If you think that we can withstand this Liberal onslaught, you better think again.

 

[Genesian]

Calling a civil union a marriage doesn’t make it so, and never will.

As for the Church being forced to marry gays, that’s poppycock. Under the first amendment, that will never happen in the United States, nor any country that has any sort of separation of church and state. It won’t happen in countries that do not have separation of church and state either, as those countries tend to be rather Draconian. So basically, it won’t happen.

I find it very telling that you use the term “Liberal.” There are many Liberal positions that are in perfect accordance with orthodox Church teaching. By using “Liberal” versus “Conservative” rhetoric, you’re politicizing an issue that is chiefly moral.

 

[neat62]

Genesian;

Calling a civil union a marriage doesn’t make it so, and never will.

In terms of a societal institution, it very much will make it so.

As for the Church being forced to marry gays, that’s poppycock. Under the first amendment, that will never happen in the United States, nor any country that has any sort of separation of church and state. It won’t happen in countries that do not have separation of church and state either, as those countries tend to be rather Draconian. So basically, it won’t happen.

It may not come from the government, but from within. Never say never and do not underestimate proggresivism. Once upon a time, the churches in those links, would have never contemplated gay marriage. Since the Liberals took over society, now they are.

I find it very telling that you use the term “Liberal.” There are many Liberal positions that are in perfect accordance with orthodox Church teaching. By using “Liberal” versus “Conservative” rhetoric, you’re politicizing an issue that is chiefly moral.

But the two go hand in hand. Politicizing issues is basiclly a persons percieved notion of morality. Liberals consider abortion to be morally sound, while Conservatives do not, for example.

 

[Annn]

Liberals consider abortion to be morally sound, while Conservatives do not, for example.

This is a terrible example. Some conservatives view abortion as acceptable, and some self-percieved liberals do not. What do these terms even mean?

 

[Genesian]

In terms of a societal institution, it very much will make it so.

I’m not concerned with societal institutions; I am concerned with sacraments.

It may not come from the government, but from within. Never say never and do not underestimate proggresivism. Once upon a time, the churches in those links, would have never contemplated gay marriage. Since the Liberals took over society, now they are.

Catholicism by its very nature is progressive, as should be all institutions. The Liberals have not take over society, as evinced by the purpose of this thread. California is arguably the most “Liberal” state in the country, and yet it passed an extremely “Conservative” constitutional amendment.

Liberals consider abortion to be morally sound, while Conservatives do not, for example.

And Conservatives consider capital punishment to be morally sound, while Liberals do not. And Conservatives consider this incredibly unjust war the U.S. is currently fighting to be morally sound, while Liberals do not. “Conservative” does not equal orthodox, and “Liberal” does not equal unorthodox, nor vice versa. Also as Annn has pointed out, these blanket statements do not apply to everyone, and you’re doing many people a disservice by painting them all with the same brush, so to speak.

 

[neat62]

This is a terrible example. Some conservatives view abortion as acceptable, and some self-percieved liberals do not.

Yeah, in general, these are the platforms of the parties. Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were German.

What do these terms even mean?

Please do not suggest that there is no kind of division in this nation. As much as you’d like to dismiss labels, these labels are generally accurate. You have flukes in both sides, but in general, these are accurate labels, and most people accept that.

 

[neat62]

Genesian;

I’m not concerned with societal institutions; I am concerned with sacraments.

Not interested in societal institutions? Well. Aren’t you lucky that you don’t live Comminst China. Or the old USSR. Or old England in 1620. Where societal institutions weren’t concerned with the Sacraments. Or the Boy Scouts here in America.

Catholicism by its very nature is progressive, as should be all institutions.

Not true. The tenants of the Faith have not changed. They do not evolve on their own.

The Liberals have not take over society, as evinced by the purpose of this thread. California is arguably the most “Liberal” state in the country, and yet it passed an extremely “Conservative” constitutional amendment.

There are 67 counties in California. 16 of them vote Liberal on a consistant basis. The districting makes California Liberal. The population does not. Media is Liberal. Schools are Liberal. Abortion is Liberal. Gay marriage is around the corner. Drug use is common. Marriage is failing, Cohabitation is rising. Women are choosing careers over familes.

And Conservatives consider capital punishment to be morally sound

And so does the Church. CCC 2267

And Conservatives consider this incredibly unjust war the U.S. is currently fighting to be morally sound,

Certainly not based on the CCC.

“Conservative” does not equal orthodox, and “Liberal” does not equal unorthodox, nor vice versa. Also as Annn has pointed out, these blanket statements do not apply to everyone, and you’re doing many people a disservice by painting them all with the same brush, so to speak.

In general(majority), these descriptions are accurate. There are flukes on both sides, but in general, these are accurate. For example: If you are a Liberal and do not support abortion, then you are a minority in that ideology.

Again, not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were German.

 

[holy_wood]

I saw the video and I thought it was biased. "The Bible also says shell fish is an abominaI mean its not like Christianity cannot justify why shell fish is okay but sodomy isn’t…

Anyway I thought it was funny in general.

As for the politics involved here is my standard responce:

It’s easy to make passionate claims on here without any evidence to back it up so for all you U.S. citizens out their who wish to read scholarly peer-reviewed findings related to the issue of gay-marriage, parenting, relationships, ect. I suggest marriagedebate.com, familyfacts.org, as well as heritage.org

The link below directs you to a 39 page argument from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal which argues for why gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. I HIGHLY suggest reading it.

marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf

The above is actually critiquing the majority opinion in the Massachusettes case that allowed same-sex marriage; for something that gets to the point try…
What is Marriage For? The Public Purpose of Marriage Law

For all you people out their who believe that gay and lesbian relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships I suggest reading…http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/353528.pdf

**“Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence from Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples” **

Source:** Kurdek, Lawrence A. Journal of Marriage and the Family Vol. 60, Number . August, 1998. Page(s) 553-568.**

Findings: Compared with heterosexual cohabiting or married couples, male homosexual couples and lesbian couples were more likely to experience the dissolution of a cohabiting relationship.
Sample or Data Description: 236 married, 66 gay cohabiting, and 51 lesbian cohabiting couples from two separate longitudinal studies.
**
Gay Parenting?**

I suggest reading Do Mothers and Fathers Matter?

The HTML link is located Here for copy and paste.

As well as** No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting
**
Can you trust the Studies relating to gay parenting?
**
** Report on Homosexual Parenting Shown to be Biased

The link to Dr. Quick’s analyses in the article is broken **here **is the proper link.
I understand its a lot of reading but this is what separates the educated from the ignorant. Its your choice but if you support or oppose gay marriage you will benefit greatly from reading the links I have posted.

If you want specific studies for a particular concern just PM me and I’ll see if I have it saved on my computer somewhere. And if the links don’t work PM me your e-mail and I’ll attach the file for you to read.

This might also interest you…

**[Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex „Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden](http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Divorce-Risk+Patterns+in+Same-Sex+Marriages+in+Norway+and+Sweden%22Andersson%2C+Gunnar&fr=ffds1&u=www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-)**

Based on data from legally registered same-sex partnerships in Sweden, homosexual male couples were 1.5 times as likely (50 percent more likely) to “divorce” as married opposite-sex couples. Lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to “divorce” as heterosexual married couples over a similar period of time. When controls for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce were added to the analysis, male homosexual couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as heterosexual married couples were.
**
Sample or Data Description:** Longitudinal information from population registers in Norway and Sweden
**
Source: **Andersson, Gunnar, Noack, Turid, Seierstad, Ane, and Weedon-Fekjaer, Harald Working Paper Vol. Presented at Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Number . April 1-3, 2004. Page(s) 1-28.

 

[Genesian]

Not interested in societal institutions? Well. Aren’t you lucky that you don’t live Comminst China. Or the old USSR. Or old England in 1620. Where societal institutions weren’t concerned with the Sacraments. Or the Boy Scouts here in America.

Yes, I am lucky. Your point is moot. I’m not a Boy Scout, and I live in the United States in 2008.

Not true. The tenants of the Faith have not changed. They do not evolve on their own.

The basic tenets of the Faith have not, but its attitudes and practices have. They do not evolve on their own, no, but they do evolve through Divine revelation.

And so does the Church. CCC 2267

Don’t twist the Catechism to fit your personal politics. By CCC 2267, capital punishment is NOT moral in the United States, nor in any industrialized country.

Certainly not based on the CCC.

No kidding. The Conservative political engine couldn’t care less for the CCC or Catholicism at all. All it’s interested in is votes and money.

If you are a Liberal and do not support abortion, then you are a minority in that ideology.

So what?

Again, not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were German.

Repeating this does not make it applicable. And not all Nazis were German. Some of them were Austrian, like Hitler.

 

[fix]

Calling a civil union a marriage doesn’t make it so, and never will.

Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good…