Same sex marrage.

  • Thread starter Thread starter YipYupYep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I agree with you on this. Sorry if I was not clear.
40.png
808Catholic:
As to whether being homosexual is a sin; no, it’s not. Committing homosexual acts ARE a sin and there’s no debate on this if you’re Catholic.
I agree with you on this as well.
40.png
808Catholic:
Slight correction: there is no Pro-Life “movement” within the Catholic church. All of the Catholic church believe there is sanctity of life no matter what age; from conception to natural death. If a person does not belief in protecting the unborn, no matter what stage of development the baby is in, that person is not aligned with Catholic church doctrine and needs to see their confessor ASAP.
I was referring to those people within the Church who specifically work in pro-life ministry. Again, sorry for any confusion with my post. Again, I agree that Catholic doctrine and moral teaching is consistently pro-life.

Peace,
Robert
 
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.

For the record, I think that it’s not “love” that is the “major test” for marriage these days. Love is an active choice. It is not governed by emotion, or sentiment, or feeling.

In today’s world, marriage is defined by the intensity of the emotional connection. “Strong feeling” is the test. Thus, if two people “really love each other” they get married. But, if a married man finds that his young female secretary understands him much better than his wife, and the two “fall in love” after working closely together for several years, then why shouldn’t the man leave his wife, and marry this new woman who he feels passionately about? After all, they really “love” each other, right? No one can deny their “feelings” for each other, correct? This is the way society has viewed marriage for the past 40 years. Films and TV portray marriage over and over as this shallow connection. The spouse locked in a “loveless” marriage is the beginning of every third Lifetime Channel movie. But it’s not true. Marriage is so much more than this. Most of us know this, but many are too afraid to state it openly, because we know too many people that have lived a scenario similar to what I described. And that’s one reason why we find ourselves in the current situation. If marriage is nothing but the public acknowledgement of two people who “really love each other” then why not extend that to two people of the same sex, right? Is this your point?, I need to just get on the bandwagon, and abandon my out-dated thinking that marriage is a lifetime commitment to family? Because if that’s what you are asking, My family and I respectfully decline the invitation.

Peace,
Robert
What I was trying to say is that gay civil marriage is the law, and the likelihood is that the SCOTUS will affirm that in late June. I certainly would never advocate for your family to change, that is the entire point - gay civil marriage has nothing to do with your marriage unless you are LGBTQ and are part of the couple that wants to be wed. I don’t know how old your kids are , but my 30 year old daughter and her peer group are staunch supporters of LGBTQ civil rights. My child attended Catholic grade school, Catholic undergrad University & law school at a well known Catholic university. These young adults have read and understand the CCC - they just cannot fathom the Church standing on this issue. Her cousin is a physician and his partner of seventeen years is also a physician. At Christmas when we were all in vacation the collisions between the ages of 25 and 40 had a bonfire on the beach . The conversation turned to gay marriage and my nephew and his life partner told the rest that they will not get married because they will never adopt children. They indicated that some of their friends have married, but they have legally set up their estates so there would never be a legal problem. My reason for sharing this story is that all couples are different whether straight or gay. In our country , civil rights that are extended to a group are rarely taken back, so the part of society that did not want the specific group to share equal protection will eventually accept reality.
I’m sorry if I was perceived to be rude in my first post, I assure you that was not my intent.:rolleyes:
 
What I was trying to say is that gay civil marriage is the law, and the likelihood is that the SCOTUS will affirm that in late June. I certainly would never advocate for your family to change, that is the entire point - gay civil marriage has nothing to do with your marriage unless you are LGBTQ and are part of the couple that wants to be wed. I don’t know how old your kids are , but my 30 year old daughter and her peer group are staunch supporters of LGBTQ civil rights. My child attended Catholic grade school, Catholic undergrad University & law school at a well known Catholic university. These young adults have read and understand the CCC - they just cannot fathom the Church standing on this issue. Her cousin is a physician and his partner of seventeen years is also a physician. At Christmas when we were all in vacation the collisions between the ages of 25 and 40 had a bonfire on the beach . The conversation turned to gay marriage and my nephew and his life partner told the rest that they will not get married because they will never adopt children. They indicated that some of their friends have married, but they have legally set up their estates so there would never be a legal problem. My reason for sharing this story is that all couples are different whether straight or gay. In our country , civil rights that are extended to a group are rarely taken back, so the part of society that did not want the specific group to share equal protection will eventually accept reality.
I’m sorry if I was perceived to be rude in my first post, I assure you that was not my intent.:rolleyes:
First, thank you very much for the clarification, and the apology. I agree with you that it appears more likely than not that “gay marriage” will be the law of the land when the Supreme Court addresses it. Even if the SCOTUS rules against the petitioners, it only means that individual states have the right to decide the issue, and there are already 36 states (and DC) that recognize same-sex unions as marriages. It’s disappointing. I do not say that because rights are being extended to people who have been targets of past unfair discrimination. I say it because that extension of rights is happening at great cost to the institution of marriage. The institution becomes nothing more than the law’s recognition of strong feelings between two people. In essence, marriage becomes less relevant, less meaningful, an affectation like a beard or a hair style that can be changed at whim. With that further decline, children are relegated to secondary status, all in the name of the pursuit of a lesser form of “happiness.”

In short, while feelings of love may be something to celebrate, they should not be the sole definition of what we choose to collectively call a marriage, even if 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices see it differently.

Peace,
Robert
 
What I was trying to say is that gay civil marriage is the law, and the likelihood is that the SCOTUS will affirm that in late June. I certainly would never advocate for your family to change, that is the entire point - gay civil marriage has nothing to do with your marriage unless you are LGBTQ and are part of the couple that wants to be wed. I don’t know how old your kids are , but my 30 year old daughter and her peer group are staunch supporters of LGBTQ civil rights. My child attended Catholic grade school, Catholic undergrad University & law school at a well known Catholic university. These young adults have read and understand the CCC - they just cannot fathom the Church standing on this issue. Her cousin is a physician and his partner of seventeen years is also a physician. At Christmas when we were all in vacation the collisions between the ages of 25 and 40 had a bonfire on the beach . The conversation turned to gay marriage and my nephew and his life partner told the rest that they will not get married because they will never adopt children. They indicated that some of their friends have married, but they have legally set up their estates so there would never be a legal problem. My reason for sharing this story is that all couples are different whether straight or gay. In our country , civil rights that are extended to a group are rarely taken back, so the part of society that did not want the specific group to share equal protection will eventually accept reality.
I’m sorry if I was perceived to be rude in my first post, I assure you that was not my intent.:rolleyes:
I hear the argument a lot that same sex marriage will not change traditional marriage (between a man and a woman). It makes intuitive sense since we tend to think that what an individual does doesn’t affect anyone else. But, I don’t believe it will be the case. Gay marriage won’t necessarily change any one person’s marriage, but it changes the sort of environment children grow up in and what they think marriage is. I don’t oppose gay marriage because of my marriage, but in concern for the future. Children already grow up in an environment where all sort of sinful things are held out as normal. If two men or two women can be married, a child growing up in this environment will naturally conclude that marriage is unrelated to the natural family, but as more or less a contract between two people that love each other. I suspect that there is a reason why the black community is the least gay marriage friendly, I think it has something to do with the already severe crisis of out of wedlock births in this community.

I fear marriage is going to be something more and more people just decide they don’t need. If a marriage is just about two people loving each other + economic benefits, why go through the trouble. In many European countries and Canada where they have domestic partner benefits people just don’t get married at all. When I lived in Quebec my wife could not even take my last name (and she wanted too!). Marriage is basically dead or on life support in large parts of the West. The percentage of gay couples that are actually marrying is quite low (though its hard to know for sure, Pew estimates about 15% of gay couples are married in states that allow it). Also, rates of “monogamish” marriages and domestic partnerships is much higher among the LGBT community (and among heterosexuals that “shack up”), it’s almost 70% among gay men (monogamish are relationships that are mostly monogamous but where there is an understanding that partners can seek sexual satisfaction outside of the couple).

Families are not social atoms and people are impacted by social trends, it just makes it harder to live a godly life. I would be more amenable to civil unions for LGBT, but they want marriage. I suspect that there is a significant chunk of the LGBT activist community that wants to go farther than this and further expand the configurations that can count as a “family.” It seems like every victory for the LGBT activist crowd is an exercise in moving the goalposts and pursuing something more and more radical. If people don’t think about what marriage really is and what it should be for, if it’s just “live and let live” then there is no limit to the changes that can be made.

When people said contraception would undermine marriage people said they were being paranoid, when people said no fault divorce would undermine marriage people said they were being paranoid, when people said cohabitation would undermine marriage people said they were being paranoid…and now with gay marriage. The paranoids were largely vindicated. Where do we take a stand?
 
…love now is the major test for marriage, not bearing children. …
For many in society, this is how they see it. And by the way, it is not just “love” - but romantic (sexual) love, regardless of sexual complementarity.
 
My question back to the OP is:
PeaceRobert
That is a well written, almost legal opinion from a higher Court, type of deal. The law is one thing. A law library has countless books in it. It is constantly changing; as it should. My question is not if the baker can win or lose in a Court of law, to Adam and Steve. But how will the baker be found in the highest court in Heaven. If he is found not guilty by his Divine King, okay. If he is found to be guilty, then we know what not to do.

Our special Law library is the Catechism. One book. It seems to me that is all that matters. Am I wrong?

Isaiah 66:5
Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: "Your own people who hate you, and exclude you because of my name, have said, ‘Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy!’ Yet they will be put to shame.

Matthew 24:9
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

Matthew 24:13
but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
 
That is a well written, almost legal opinion from a higher Court, type of deal. The law is one thing. A law library has countless books in it. It is constantly changing; as it should. My question is not if the baker can win or lose in a Court of law, to Adam and Steve. But how will the baker be found in the highest court in Heaven. If he is found not guilty by his Divine King, okay. If he is found to be guilty, then we know what not to do.

Our special Law library is the Catechism. One book. It seems to me that is all that matters. Am I wrong?

Isaiah 66:5
Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: "Your own people who hate you, and exclude you because of my name, have said, ‘Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy!’ Yet they will be put to shame.

Matthew 24:9
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

Matthew 24:13
but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
I agree with you in the sense that we need to stand for our faith, and that we will be accountable for our action (or inaction). No question about it. But the Lord sends us out among the wolves with the admonition to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
Bible - RSV CE:
Matthew 10:16
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
What I proposed is a way for bakers/florist and other business people in the wedding industry to avoid a lawsuit that is likely to be financially and legally ruinous. At the same time, the proposed solution allows one who is backed into the position of not being allowed to refuse services to someone because of their gender identity to avoid giving scandal by preparing a cake that is not celebratory but is instead somber, or evangelical, or whatever other form of expression the individual deems to be appropriate for the occasion of an attempted “gay wedding.” I think this can be done tastefully but assertively, and in a manner that we are called to act as followers of Christ.

Peace,
Robert
 
I still don’t understand all the fuss.

Civil Marriage is something created by the Government, completely independent from any religion. That’s why atheists can be legally married. That’s why divorcees can be legally married. If a couple wants a marriage that satisfies the requirements of their religion, that is their right.

Religious Marriages are recognized by the government as Civil Marriages.

Civil Marriages CAN be recognized by whatever church, but said church doesn’t HAVE to recognize it.

This isn’t rocket science. Jack and Spencer getting married as permitted by the government is a legal, valid marriage in the the eyes of the law. But not in the eyes of the Church. And that’s OKAY!

It’s already legal in that majority of states and will become legal in the remaining 13 states (I think it’s 13, more or less) THIS YEAR.

We can argue about cakes and flowers and what the church says until our faces turn blue…but the fact is that the vast majority of gay couples mind their own business. They don’t get involved in these debates. They’re not waving rainbow flags or marching in parades. They’re not attending GLAAD sponsored events or conforming to any “agenda”. They’re just living their lives together, in love and doing their best.

Frankly, who gives a damn?
 
I still don’t understand all the fuss.

Civil Marriage is something created by the Government, completely independent from any religion. That’s why atheists can be legally married. That’s why divorcees can be legally married. If a couple wants a marriage that satisfies the requirements of their religion, that is their right.

Religious Marriages are recognized by the government as Civil Marriages.

Civil Marriages CAN be recognized by whatever church, but said church doesn’t HAVE to recognize it.

This isn’t rocket science. Jack and Spencer getting married as permitted by the government is a legal, valid marriage in the the eyes of the law. But not in the eyes of the Church. And that’s OKAY!

It’s already legal in that majority of states and will become legal in the remaining 13 states (I think it’s 13, more or less) THIS YEAR.

We can argue about cakes and flowers and what the church says until our faces turn blue…but the fact is that the vast majority of gay couples mind their own business. They don’t get involved in these debates. They’re not waving rainbow flags or marching in parades. They’re not attending GLAAD sponsored events or conforming to any “agenda”. They’re just living their lives together, in love and doing their best.

Frankly, who gives a damn?
Many. Marriage is a sexual relationship arising from the nature of man. It forms natural family units and has the potential to grow the community through the birth of children. The sexual relationship between two men is not marriage, should not be portrayed as such, and is of no special significance to the State.
 
I still don’t understand all the fuss.

Civil Marriage is something created by the Government, completely independent from any religion. That’s why atheists can be legally married. That’s why divorcees can be legally married. If a couple wants a marriage that satisfies the requirements of their religion, that is their right.

Religious Marriages are recognized by the government as Civil Marriages.

Civil Marriages CAN be recognized by whatever church, but said church doesn’t HAVE to recognize it.

This isn’t rocket science. Jack and Spencer getting married as permitted by the government is a legal, valid marriage in the the eyes of the law. But not in the eyes of the Church. And that’s OKAY!

It’s already legal in that majority of states and will become legal in the remaining 13 states (I think it’s 13, more or less) THIS YEAR.

We can argue about cakes and flowers and what the church says until our faces turn blue…but the fact is that the vast majority of gay couples mind their own business. They don’t get involved in these debates. They’re not waving rainbow flags or marching in parades. They’re not attending GLAAD sponsored events or conforming to any “agenda”. They’re just living their lives together, in love and doing their best.

Frankly, who gives a damn?
@Finite,
The Church cares because the government is forcing ministers and priests to marry those who are not in alignment with their religion. Civil marriage can take place at city hall in front of an authorized justice of the peace but no one outside the church can perform a sacramental marriage. Sacramental marriage is reserved for those who abide by the church’s rules so, if a church believes SS marriage is not in compliance with their doctrine, no power on earth should be used to force them to marriage SS “couples”. This is the movement created by secular activist who seek to blur the lines of morals by pushing relativism. If every issue can be negotiated by men, there is no need to obey God. THAT’s what the church is fighting for; the supremacy of God in sacred issues.
 
@Finite,
The Church cares because the government is forcing ministers and priests to marry those who are not in alignment with their religion.
that’s overstating it by a lot. the first amendment protects priests, and everybody else, from having to participate in any religious ceremony. so just as rabbis don’t have to marry non-jews, catholics won’t be asked (well maybe asked but not required) to marry any non-catholics.

sorry to walk in late to a very contentious issue… but also:

the state has a compelling interest in marriage, but not because of any high-minded ideals. in the eyes of the law, marriage is mostly a property arrangement. the government needs some system in place to decide what happens with inheritances, taxes, etc.

marriage is also public ceremony that declares a lifetime commitment to another person. and let’s agree that people get married for lot’s of different reasons, not solely to procreate. the state interest in marriage obviously exists, and also individuals can have religious, emotional, financial reasons to get married that fall outside the purview of government intervention.

regardless of one’s personal feelings, marriage does confer some privileges to married couples, in the form of tax breaks, plus all the great wedding gifts etc. and many other intangible benefits like hospital visitation rights.

to me, it’s simple: denying gay couples these rights is sexual discrimination.

let’s say there’s adam and eve and steve. both eve and steve want to marry adam- who is very desperate and will marry the first person that asks him. the only difference between eve and steve are their sexes. so to deny either steve or eve the right to marry adam is clear-cut sexual discrimination.
 
@Finite,
The Church cares because the government is forcing ministers and priests to marry those who are not in alignment with their religion. Civil marriage can take place at city hall in front of an authorized justice of the peace but no one outside the church can perform a sacramental marriage. Sacramental marriage is reserved for those who abide by the church’s rules so, if a church believes SS marriage is not in compliance with their doctrine, no power on earth should be used to force them to marriage SS “couples”. This is the movement created by secular activist who seek to blur the lines of morals by pushing relativism. If every issue can be negotiated by men, there is no need to obey God. THAT’s what the church is fighting for; the supremacy of God in sacred issues.
Precisely. You are correct. Sacramental marriage can only take place within the Church. Civil marriage is not sacramental. Therefore, being non sacramental, also same sex couples can contract a civil marriage.
 
…let’s say there’s adam and eve and steve. both eve and steve want to marry adam- who is very desperate and will marry the first person that asks him. the only difference between eve and steve are their sexes. so to deny either steve or eve the right to marry adam is clear-cut sexual discrimination.
LOL…😃

And I guess any objection to all 3 marrying each other would be to deny them freedom of association?

Your thinking relies on a view about what marriage is. Marriage is a sexual relationship arising from the nature of man. It forms natural family units and has the potential to grow the community through the birth of children. The sexual relationship between two men is not marriage, should not be portrayed as such, and is of no special significance to the State.
 
Precisely. You are correct. Sacramental marriage can only take place within the Church. Civil marriage is not sacramental. Therefore, being non sacramental, also same sex couples can contract a civil marriage.
This is an aside, but actually civil marriages that take place outside of the Church can be sacramental as well. Any time two baptized individuals marry validly, they are sacramentally married, even if they got married in city hall. Catholics are bound by canon law to marry in the Church or to receive a dispensation, but there is not such requirement for Baptists or Lutherans or Episcopalians, etc, all of whom would have sacramental marriages if they married at city hall.
 
regardless of one’s personal feelings, marriage does confer some privileges to married couples, in the form of tax breaks, plus all the great wedding gifts etc. and many other intangible benefits like hospital visitation rights.

to me, it’s simple: denying gay couples these rights is sexual discrimination.
The state does not deny gay individuals marriage or any of the rights that accompany it. Any individual, gay or straight, is permitted to marry, which is by definition to a member of the opposite sex. The fact is that gay individuals do not want marriage. They want a different sexual relationship and they want the rest of us to call it marriage and to treat it the same way, even though it is impossible for children to result from that union and any child brought in to that union must necessarily have been deprived of at least one of their natural parents.
 
Your thinking relies on a view about what marriage is. Marriage is a sexual relationship arising from the nature of man. It forms natural family units and has the potential to grow the community through the birth of children. The sexual relationship between two men is not marriage, should not be portrayed as such, and is of no special significance to the State.
this is a waste of time. it is so clear to you that gays cannot get married because that’s not what you think a marriage is. i get it. why should anybody care what you think?

for instance, the KKK thinks that blacks and whites shouldn’t get married. ok, i get it. that’s what they believe. how is your bigotry (intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself) any different? this is a real question.
 
why should anybody care what you think?
Because his position is supported by natural law and is very reasonable.

It’s not bigotry to point out that men and women are different, that two men cannot bear children, and that the state might have an interest in protecting children and encouraging married couples to give birth to them.

z0wb13, what do you consider marriage? Is it just two people who love each other and want to commit to each other for life? Something more or less? How did you come to your definition and why do you hold to it?
 
Just curious. What if the “marriage” terminology was dropped and it was just “civil unions” that were recognized with the same state benefits as marriage (joint tax filing, visitation rights, etc.)? Personally, I would be less opposed to such an arrangement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top