Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[Vonsalza]

Regarding the first part. It is inaccurate… So when I go to vote, I do not vote by party, I vote for whoever represents the truth the most, just like others vote for what they believe in.

We all get to vote any way we please, for good or bad. But any law that would suggest that a secular institution must be defined by a specific religious one would be the recipient of a successful legal challenge. Imagine if Muslims attempted to codify the Sharia in the US. You would balk similarly.

Second, we don’t need government to tell us what marriage is.

For its own purposes, yes we do. As this nation is also made up of non-Catholics (moreover, non-Christians), they are not obligated to what we think marriage is in the sacramental context.

All cultures had some form of official recognition, including “common law” marriages.

All cultures across all time? I don’t have the references on me, but I’m certain that exceptions exist.

The State within a State has no right to redefine marriage to mean something contrary to human biology.

This is far-fetched as there is nothing in human biology that objectively and irrefutably points to the monogamy that marriage entails.

Sure, they can pass laws but I will not accept any law that violates human biology.

As marriage is a social construct rather than a biological one, I think this argument is missing a key leg to stand on.

Thanks for your time, Ed.

 

[Rau]

…
For its own purposes, yes we do. As this nation is also made up of non-Catholics (moreover, non-Christians), they are not obligated to what we think marriage is in the sacramental context.

Why would Catholicism be the only basis for drawing a conclusion that government should take no interest in the sexual relationship of two men? Common sense is sufficient.

I’ve nothing against government creating a legal framework for relationships that need or deserve it - but marriage is one rather specific and unique relationship and it seems very odd to decide that different things are now the same.

 

[Vonsalza]

…marriage is one rather specific and unique relationship…

I agree. But others do not. It’s their America too.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Rather than allow same-sex couples to marry, we should simply abolish marriage, the family, and the very concept of gender and sex.

 

[Vonsalza]

Rather than allow same-sex couples to marry, we should simply abolish marriage, the family, and the very concept of gender and sex.

As it pertains to the functions of a secular government, I might be able to dance to that.

As long as you’re not saying that this abolition must also apply to the cultures of the people governed…

 

[ANV]

Imagine forbidding two people from loving each other, how evil that would be, let him who is without sin cast the first stone , I didn’t find anything in the new testament, said by Jesus, that opposes gay marriage.

 

[Rau]

Imagine forbidding two people from loving each other, how evil that would be, let him who is without sin cast the first stone , I didn’t find anything in the new testament, said by Jesus, that opposes gay marriage.

How did you jump from “two people loving each other” to “marriage”. Do you see the latter as always a natural consequence of the former?

 

[ericc]

If you are saying as long as people are happy committing sins, we should let them be? Tell that to Jesus he wasted his trip here. That mindset scares me because no standard applies to them other than happiness. Won’t that apply to drug use, sadist/masochist pairs, incestuous pairs etc

The concern is sins are vehemently rejected by God. Sinners need love and forgiveness, counseling etc but not the acceptance that their acts are good and accepted as normal. Being the 3 monkeys that can’t see evil, hear evil and speak against evil is how evil can persist and spread in this world.

 

[josh987654321]

Thank you for demonstrating the real opposite of love, apathy.

Yup.

Not exactly the opposite, but yes it’s certainly apathetic. And really shows unfortunately the ignorance of people like the OP in regards to the very serious consequences that have ensued from redefining marriage and will continue to ensue.

If same-sex couples believe that marriage will bring them happiness, let it be.

And if they want to use IVF and surrogacy to have kids (intentionally depriving them of their biological mother and father from the get go and arguing it as ‘equality’)… let it be?

And if they want to force radical gender theory education on kindergarteners with books like ‘The Transgendered Teddy’ who simply wants to be called ‘Tilly’ instead of ‘Teddy’… let it be?

And if they treat anyone who holds the correct view of marriage as between a man and a woman as akin to the KKK… let it be?

How about Archbishop Porteous of Hobart who was taken to an Anti Discrimination Commission for distributing a Catholic booklet on marriage within Catholic Schools and Churches regarding Catholic Teaching on marriage and the family? And how about those who burned copies of those booklets deemed as hate speech? … let it be?

I can keep going, but I hope you get the point.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Shakuhachi]

Since same sex attraction seems to be an innate aspect of one’s personality and the Catholic view of it is one of “disorder” it seems to me that our first responsibility is charity toward those with it. I think part of that is respecting the fact that they may not share our faith nor our view. So as Catholics we will not accept “Same-sex marriage”. But there are bigger issues to be up in arms about that legal same sex unions. I lean “Let it be” when it comes to law in pluralistic secular society. Love is love. Let it be.

 

[josh987654321]

A marriage between two divorced people is also wrong, but there are no Catholics calling for it to be made illegal. Why?

Because in regards to divorce, it’s like starting the car with the intention of driving it on the road but then losing control. With same sex marriage, this is like starting the car on the footpath with the intention of driving it on the footpath and arguing ‘equality’.

And if we want to use this argument, the same can be said when ‘polygamy’ is argued next or any other further redefinition. It’s like little Billy is already on cocaine, may as well introduce heroin to him too. ‘shrug’ (If I can find that emoticon)

Also, who was arguing for ‘divorce equality’ when no fault divorce went through? that divorce is somehow ‘equal’ like they are arguing with so called ‘same sex marriage’? I think we all understand that divorce is not something to be encouraged but to be avoided. They certainly do not hold this view with so called same sex marriage.

Do we see parades of ‘no-fault divorced and proud’?

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Love is love

Love of what?

As a Priest once gave an excellent homily about. He was once visited by a man who was having an affair with his wife, and he said that he “loved both women” and the Priest correctly said that in actuality he loved neither of them, he loved himself.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Imagine forbidding two people from loving each other, how evil that would be, let him who is without sin cast the first stone , I didn’t find anything in the new testament, said by Jesus, that opposes gay marriage

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. So many fallacies in this.

1. Imagine forbidding a husband from loving another woman not his wife? Or forbidding a man from loving multiple women? Does adultery and promiscuity sound right and just now simply because of the deceptive way I framed these questions?
2. Nobody is throwing stones at anyone. If we use it in your context, then I can use that saying against you over anything, lets abolish law and order completely citing ‘let he who is without sin’.
3. Mark 10:5-9 & Matthew 19:5-6
   5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

I hope this has helped.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Not by unelected judges.

Exactly, very wrong how same sex marriage was imposed on the USA by 9 unelected judges, the same with ‘Abortion’ which the declaration directly speaks to regarding the first and most basic right, the right to ‘life’ …liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Shakuhachi]

You used an example of a heterosexual problem to argue against same sex love?

 

[josh987654321]

You used an example of a heterosexual problem to argue against same sex love?

I used it to point out the fallacy in your ‘love is love’ comment often used by alphabet activists and anyone else who wants to conveniently deceive people (even themselves).

 

[Shakuhachi]

Josh, All you have done is described a heterosexual situation where an individual let feelings over rule commitment. Of course that is not specific to heterosexual relationships but it does not really respond to my point. When I said, “Love is love.” I meant that we do not have a lot of choice about what we feel, especially when it comes to attractions. We can choose how we act on those feelings. If people do not share our Catholic view of marriage and by their nature feel greater same sex attraction than opposite sex attractions, it is up to them how they will live them out. All we can say is that on our view same sex unions are not appropriate but we should not expect a lot of agreement.

 

[ANV]

now we got a new gay emoticon.

 

[ClearWater]

A friend of mine said, “If 2 dudes want to get married, what do I care? It doesn’t affect me.”

However, I have come to realize the ramifications of allowing this would be that it’s considered equal to marriage. Then, you open the door to gays insisting that cake makers, florists, photographers, and clergy must participate in their “marriages” and sue if not. Then, the next step is gay adoption.

We have an obligation to oppose gay marriage, because it’s wrong. Then, it leads to all kinds of other worse sins and puts people of faith who don’t want to participate into a position where they are fined, jailed, etc., for “discrimination”.

 

[kesa82]

I’m with the Ayatollah Khomeini on the subject of marriage.

That is to say, it is a religious institution. I do not acknowledge that the folks who make license plates and issue fishing licenses have any legitimate (name removed by moderator)ut in the subject.

The funny part of course is that both homosexuals and traditional heterosexuals ( though there is little I can identify as traditional about them ) will both ridicule and / or hate on me for that.

And I would be as likely to see them at Mass tomorrow, as to see them in a gay bar.