W
whatevergirl
Guest
there is a teens thread? lolWG-
take it to TEENS thread.
Lets keep this one on topic
ok i’m done…no more…mouth is zipped.
- Status
ok i’m done…no more…mouth is zipped.
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
I dont think there are enough, sorry, to see you getting what you want.
save your pennies, so when you are legal you can catch that plane
T
Teen4Christ
Guest
Sorry, I’m not leaving. I think there’s enough.
And soon enough…they will be heard
W
whatevergirl
Guest
It’s not good…not just from a religious perspective, but from a secular one–to have no limits or boundaries in life. Marriage has a definition, to change it…we will begin changing the natural order of more things to come. On that note–did any of our ancestors try to redefine marriage? Is there a history of this…if not, why now?
T
Teen4Christ
Guest
Because love between two of age humans deserves to be recognized
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
well I guess if you wish hard enough satan will answer your wishSorry, I’m not leaving. I think there’s enough.
And soon enough…they will be heard
But I think your wrong. If there where enough then those states that had the vote would of given marriage to homosexuals, but guess what they didnt!
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
and what about love between three or four of age adults?or what about love between two siblings of age?
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Yes, there is a teen thread, but no one there wants to deal with this type of pointless argument there. That’s why the Teen thread is in the clubhouse, not apologetics. anyway, can’t wait to see what comes of this:
Elric? Want to take a shot at this?
E
Elric
Guest
That would be a resounding yes to your question.
E
Elric
Guest
And say what exactly?
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
And an example?
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
You have here an actual homosexual who seems to be in favor of giving marriage to any consenting adults (no exclusions for incest orpolygamy). Don’t tell me you have no problems with this now? Or you could wait for Teen to come back and “clarify”…
E
Elric
Guest
I think that the previous acceptance of polygamy would count, incest was also a common practice in many cultures.
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
And why aren’t these practices acceptable now?
E
Elric
Guest
I think that would be part of my point.
E
Elric
Guest
Mate, honestly what is wrong with you?You have here an actual homosexual who seems to be in favor of giving marriage to any consenting adults (no exclusions for incest orpolygamy). Don’t tell me you have no problems with this now? Or you could wait for Teen to come back and “clarify”…
Where is the need?
J
JReducation
Guest
I realize that I’m chiming in late on this thread. If what I have to say has already been said, I apologize for the repetition.
Marriage is a sacramental union between a male and a female. Through marriage two people become one. This has been the faith of the Church from the first century. It has also been defined as a sign of the union between Christ and the Church (his people) not just the Catholic Church.
The State defines marriage as a contract between a male and female. Herein lays the problem. The State has redefined marriage.
I believe that the Church has no objection to protecting the civil rights of homosexual people.
The question of same-sex marriage has many roots. Some are political and others are practical. Let’s look at the practical roots of the question.
Too often gay or lesbian persons have lived as a couple and are denied access to resources to which they have contributed, such as common property and financial assets when one member of the couple dies unless said property is in joint accounts. This would not be possible in heterosexual marriages, even if the accounts are not joint. I know, because I’m a widower.
Another situation that has arisen has to do with medical information. Two people who have lived as a couple and one is sick, the patient’s family can block the other person’s access to information on the condition of their partner on the grounds that the partner is not a family member.
My final and third example, though not the end of the list, in some instances, a gay person comes to the relationship with a child whom the second person adopts. Legally, both are parents. If the biological parent dies, does the child have a right to live with the adoptive parent?
While the Church is not in the business of same sex marriages, it is in the business of Christian justice. It expects society to respond with compassion and justice. There is no moral reason to deny someone access to his or her financial assets or material property. It is uncharitable to deny someone access to a person whom they love, when that person is sick or dying. Finally, the Church does recognize legal adoptions.
However, because marriage is a sacramental bond that has been defined by the Scriptures, Christian tradition and the Apostolic Church, it is more than a legal contract. Therefore, as Christians we have to approach this issue with a two—pronged fork. We must seek to protect the sanctity of marriage, because we do not have the authority to change it’s structure. At the same time, we must work in the political sphere to ensure that civil law is compassionate and just.
We do not need a civil same-sex marriage, but laws that respect people’s rights and are compassionate. The law can be wide enough to include someone whom the patient would want to be included at a time of crisis? Some would argue that we’re endorsing the gay couple’s point of view. This is a risk. But there is such a thing in morality as necessary risk, such as sterilizing a woman when you extract a cancerous uterus. Maybe compassion and charity overrule the risk. After all, we do run home for AIDS patients and we know that they usually acquired the disease through sinful behavior. We’re not endorsing the behavior by caring for them.
I had such a situation in my family. My wife, son and father were in an auto accident, many years ago. My seven-year old son was on life support. At the end of a long night I was informed that he was brain dead. I had to decide whether to shut off the machines or move him to a hospice. According to the law, the only person who could have access to this information was me, because I was his father. I was in shock and couldn’t think clearly. My father and wife were dead in the hospital morgue and my son was brain dead, my two other children were 5 and 9 and I had to pull the plug or keep him alive artificially. Outside was a Franciscan Brother who had been my classmate and friend for many years. He celebrated my wedding and baptized all of my children. He wanted to be there. He loved my son. I needed him. It would have been uncharitable to exclude such a loved one at such a critical time.
In this case, it was simple. I signed a waiver and the doctor shared everything with Brother. But this is not always the case. Sometimes family members of a gay or lesbian patient choose to exclude a loved one and the law cannot overrule it. Is this a compassionate law? I feel uncomfortable with it. If I’m ever in such a situation and there is no next of kin around, I want a loved one who may not be related, informed and close as I’m dying. I would rather that person make decisions than a judge who feels no love for me. We can make such allowances without gay marriage. Let’s make the laws more compassionate and fair.
Marriage is a sacramental union between a male and a female. Through marriage two people become one. This has been the faith of the Church from the first century. It has also been defined as a sign of the union between Christ and the Church (his people) not just the Catholic Church.
The State defines marriage as a contract between a male and female. Herein lays the problem. The State has redefined marriage.
I believe that the Church has no objection to protecting the civil rights of homosexual people.
The question of same-sex marriage has many roots. Some are political and others are practical. Let’s look at the practical roots of the question.
Too often gay or lesbian persons have lived as a couple and are denied access to resources to which they have contributed, such as common property and financial assets when one member of the couple dies unless said property is in joint accounts. This would not be possible in heterosexual marriages, even if the accounts are not joint. I know, because I’m a widower.
Another situation that has arisen has to do with medical information. Two people who have lived as a couple and one is sick, the patient’s family can block the other person’s access to information on the condition of their partner on the grounds that the partner is not a family member.
My final and third example, though not the end of the list, in some instances, a gay person comes to the relationship with a child whom the second person adopts. Legally, both are parents. If the biological parent dies, does the child have a right to live with the adoptive parent?
While the Church is not in the business of same sex marriages, it is in the business of Christian justice. It expects society to respond with compassion and justice. There is no moral reason to deny someone access to his or her financial assets or material property. It is uncharitable to deny someone access to a person whom they love, when that person is sick or dying. Finally, the Church does recognize legal adoptions.
However, because marriage is a sacramental bond that has been defined by the Scriptures, Christian tradition and the Apostolic Church, it is more than a legal contract. Therefore, as Christians we have to approach this issue with a two—pronged fork. We must seek to protect the sanctity of marriage, because we do not have the authority to change it’s structure. At the same time, we must work in the political sphere to ensure that civil law is compassionate and just.
We do not need a civil same-sex marriage, but laws that respect people’s rights and are compassionate. The law can be wide enough to include someone whom the patient would want to be included at a time of crisis? Some would argue that we’re endorsing the gay couple’s point of view. This is a risk. But there is such a thing in morality as necessary risk, such as sterilizing a woman when you extract a cancerous uterus. Maybe compassion and charity overrule the risk. After all, we do run home for AIDS patients and we know that they usually acquired the disease through sinful behavior. We’re not endorsing the behavior by caring for them.
I had such a situation in my family. My wife, son and father were in an auto accident, many years ago. My seven-year old son was on life support. At the end of a long night I was informed that he was brain dead. I had to decide whether to shut off the machines or move him to a hospice. According to the law, the only person who could have access to this information was me, because I was his father. I was in shock and couldn’t think clearly. My father and wife were dead in the hospital morgue and my son was brain dead, my two other children were 5 and 9 and I had to pull the plug or keep him alive artificially. Outside was a Franciscan Brother who had been my classmate and friend for many years. He celebrated my wedding and baptized all of my children. He wanted to be there. He loved my son. I needed him. It would have been uncharitable to exclude such a loved one at such a critical time.
In this case, it was simple. I signed a waiver and the doctor shared everything with Brother. But this is not always the case. Sometimes family members of a gay or lesbian patient choose to exclude a loved one and the law cannot overrule it. Is this a compassionate law? I feel uncomfortable with it. If I’m ever in such a situation and there is no next of kin around, I want a loved one who may not be related, informed and close as I’m dying. I would rather that person make decisions than a judge who feels no love for me. We can make such allowances without gay marriage. Let’s make the laws more compassionate and fair.
T
Teen4Christ
Guest
I’ll clarify when you start acting matureYou have here an actual homosexual who seems to be in favor of giving marriage to any consenting adults (no exclusions for incest orpolygamy). Don’t tell me you have no problems with this now? Or you could wait for Teen to come back and “clarify”…
I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I am upset about the way your acting.
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
I think you are confused TEEN. HE was acting mature, perhaps the question is too mature for you, if not perhaps you would care to clarifyI’ll clarify when you start acting mature
I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I am upset about the way your acting.
You have a habit of making statements and when questioned on it you jump ship (so to speak) or totally ignore the question and make some immature comment. So if you want to be taken seriously please clarify.
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
That is not what I was refering to TEEN4CHRIST has his own thread…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=206757 in the Social Justice section.
- Status