My point is that the natural parents of a child cannot be of the same sex. So, changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples deprives a child of at least one natural parent in the context of a same-sex couple raising a family.
I’m not sure I’m following you here. It’s not the Catholic Church that is moving to change the definition of marriage and make it exclusive. It’s the “gay rights” movement that has pushed to redefine marriage by uncoupling it from it’s primary purpose in society… uniting children to their two biological parents. The motivation for the change is not to get the government out of the marriage business. The motivation of the gay rights movement is to force society to recognize and legitimatize the “gay” lifestyle choice.
Now I have that Beatles song running through my head. My friend, marriage is about more than love. It is about a commitment to be responsible for the raising of the children that result from a sexual union between two people. Marriage is that commitment to family. That’s why it’s a garment that just does not fit on a same-sex union, regardless of the amount of love and respect the two persons may have for each other. It’s a difference not in the amount of love, but in the nature of the pairing that makes it something other than a marriage.
I haven’t intentionally used any of these phrases. I agree, let’s keep politics out of it. Although there are more democrats than republicans who favor same-sex marriage, there are people on both sides of the debate in both parties. Political affiliations and labels simply draw lines. They are not relevant to a discussion of the issue.
We are way past society accepting the fact that gay people exsist. In addition, love now is the major test for marriage, not bearing children. Unless people are willing to take the time in which we live into account and not continually repeat the mantra that being LGBTQ is a lifestyle choice, then nothing will change for the ever smaller group who are fearful of gays.
Hi again Sean:
I’m sorry, what is the point you are trying to make here? If you are calling me a homophobe, I’m afraid you are mistaken. I live and work in a city and neighborhood that is very progressive. I have no problem interacting with men and women who live the “gay” lifestyle. (And it is a choice, even if one’s same-sex attraction is genetic or not. We all have choices over how we act in life.) I believe that there should be no harassment or stigmatizing of people because of their sexual orientation. I have represented clients who are gay. So, to suggest that I’m some sort of homophobe, or one who just doesn’t understand the complexity of the situation is a complete misunderstanding of me personally, and (more importantly) my position. Your comment is the quintessential response by those who are trying to squelch a reasoned debate. Debate the issue. Please don’t attack me personally.We are way past society accepting the fact that gay people exsist. In addition, love now is the major test for marriage, not bearing children. Unless people are willing to take the time in which we live into account and not continually repeat the mantra that being LGBTQ is a lifestyle choice, then nothing will change for the ever smaller group who are fearful of gays.
With all due respect, I disagree about your opinion that it’s “all about the children.” Yes, God created marriage between a man and a woman so that they may beget children but a marriage would be valid if the man and woman could not bear children physiologically. If they entered marriage with the intent to have children and continued the conjugal act with the intent of conceiving a child, their marriage is still valid. If one partner had himself or herself voluntarily sterilized solely to avoid the possibility of conceiving a child, there will be the question (by the Church) whether he/she entered into the marriage with false intent. That’s the reason the Priest asks questions during the pre-marriage interview process and why the couple normally vows to raise their children Catholic during the exchange of wedding vows in front of a filled church.
Christians are IN and not OF this world. We live the world like everyone else but understand there is a calling from God to be ever faithful to His Word not to the latest poll or current social fad. Christians do not ignore that there are some brothers and sisters who have SSA just as we don’t ignore there are clergy that openly sin but we are reminded by Jesus to love the sinner not the sin. Even while Christ hung on the cross, He listened to the “good thief” to His right and promised him salvation; not because he was a thief but because the thief came to belief in the Son of God. We’re all sinners but we are still loved by God. That’s the message we should be bearing. God will do the forgiving (if that is His Holy Will); we just need to bring others with us when we go to heaven for our judgement. And forget being in the minority: how alone was Jesus as He sacrificed His Life for us?We are way past society accepting the fact that gay people exsist. In addition, love now is the major test for marriage, not bearing children. Unless people are willing to take the time in which we live into account and not continually repeat the mantra that being LGBTQ is a lifestyle choice, then nothing will change for the ever smaller group who are fearful of gays.
Divorce is very serious indeed! That’s why the Catholic church discourages it as much as possible. It is the very last resort and there are serious consequences to those who marry after they divorce (without an annulment by the Tribunal.)
That is a disingenuous statement. You cannot legislate a sacrament then say the government will exclude itself from the legislation. First, the Church does not recognize the authority of any civil government over the laws of God. Secondly, by creating a law, the government “owns” the issue. The government would end up telling the church what is and what isn’t considered a legal marriage. Talk about violation of the supposed separation of church and state!
By your assertion, a brother and sister should be able to marry as well. And a son may marry his mother or a daughter marry her father or a grand daughter marry her grand father. There is only one definition of marriage that works and it works because God created us that way.
When Noah got off that boat with his family they all started to have kids with each other if they were the only ‘humans’ on the earth!!!
It’s not just “my” church, it’s “your” church as well. We are the Body of Christ and when we have contradictions in that Body, we weaken the entire Church. If you want to cite “years of law”, how about the 2,000 plus years where one man, one woman was the law? The Church is not the party trying to make it illegal for SS marriage; we only want the government to leave the sacraments up to the church.
They can enter into a marriage contract just as people who had disagreement with the Church previously had done in the past. They’re just not going to be married in the Catholic Church.
It’s not only what we believe, it’s what God told us. Rights come from God, not from men. When you believe men can bestow rights, you allow them to take them away as well. You create an “idol” out of the government and you know how that will end.
Seriously, ajecphotos? You’re a Eucharistic Minister. You distribute the very Body of Christ. How do you not find what you just wrote disgusting?