Should the state marry gay lovers?

[c659smith]

couragecampaign.org/page/s/ThankYouForMilk

Round of applause for that man.

I definitely disagree with you that this is courage. This is trying to impede upon a Religious institution and that is called Marriage. An institution that is between a Man and Woman.

Noted in the speech he said one day gays would be able to be married.

Being a homosexual is not a crime and no one has the right to discriminate aganist any group of people.

Homosexuality is a gift from God a calling to celibate life.

For to act upon those feelings is a sin and that is throughout the 3 major religions of the world esspecially Christianity. To attempt to say it does not is lying to oneself.

We all have feelings and tendencies of one sort or another but to act upon them does not make it right.

However I do not want to impede on anyone’s free choice of being in communion with God’s laws or choosing to deny the word of God and to commit sin.

God gave us free will and who am I to impede that which God has given.

However a joining of two gay couples and call it a marriage is rediculous.

From Adam and Eve, Marriage is an institution that involves procreation or the possibility to.

If they are looking for a license than let the State call it civil union. Give onto Ceasar that which is Ceasars and give unto God that which is God’s.

There is no equality in Religion unless you speak of a cult.
Those that are condemned and those to whom are saved.
Seperation of the sheep and goats.

 

[AngelAshley]

Note: This will be my last post on this thread, I am being censored by the Admins and see no point in further discussion with a group of people who are not open to have their ideas questioned

Just noticed that you live in the UK. Mind the business in your own country. Move here and you can vote, with the rest of us “ignorant” Christians.

Human rights know no geographical boundries. Besides… “Mind the business in your own country” coming out of America. Oh the irony

And here is some real courage.

You call THAT courage? Denying oneself in the name of religious lies is not courage.

This is trying to impede upon a Religious institution and that is called Marriage. An institution that is between a Man and Woman.

Actually we want the legal definition changed, couldn’t care less about what religious people say it is or isn’t.

Being a homosexual is not a crime and no one has the right to discriminate aganist any group of people.

If only the Catholic Church acted on that and stopped discriminating against gays…

Homosexuality is a gift from God a calling to celibate life.

Why would God create sexual attraction to call for “celibate life”? That doesn’t make sense. Why not just remove sexual attraction alltogether?

To attempt to say it does not is lying to oneself.

I’m not saying that it’s not a sin according to major religions (although that is debateable)… I am saying that it doesn’t matter a toss, since religion is a load of bunkum.

We all have feelings and tendencies of one sort or another but to act upon them does not make it right.

What sort of partner would I be to my girlfriend if I refused to have sex with her because of the teachings of some aincent book?! I think she’d leave me, and that’s not right!

 

[Newbie2]

Note: This will be my last post on this thread, I am being censored by the Admins and see no point in further discussion with a group of people who are not open to have their ideas questioned

Questioning is fine. Debating is fine. Expecting us to agree with you is not.

Human rights know no geographical boundries. Besides… “Mind the business in your own country” coming out of America. Oh the irony

That would be true if we were talking about human rights.

You call THAT courage? Denying oneself in the name of religious lies is not courage.

Agreed. But we’re talking about the Truth, not “religious lies”.

Actually we want the legal definition changed, couldn’t care less about what religious people say it is or isn’t.

That’s apparent.

If only the Catholic Church acted on that and stopped discriminating against gays…



Why would God create sexual attraction to call for “celibate life”? That doesn’t make sense. Why not just remove sexual attraction alltogether?

Death on the cross makes no sense either, does it? God created intelligence in humans so that we are able to discern what’s good for us and what’s not, and not act like animals in simply giving into our desires.

I’m not saying that it’s not a sin according to major religions (although that is debateable)… I am saying that it doesn’t matter a toss, since religion is a load of bunkum.

Are you a betting man? Check out Pascal’s wager, friend.

What sort of partner would I be to my girlfriend if I refused to have sex with her because of the teachings of some aincent book?! I think she’d leave me, and that’s not right!

It’s sad that you seem to be so preoccupied with sex…and that your relationship hinges on it.

 

[shannin]

There’s no way that it could be considered a marriage in the eyes of God. If a state marries gays, it’s just a piece of paper for legal purposes, not a real marriage.

 

[nsper7]

What is interesting is that in all of human history prior to these times, no culture has ever allowed “homosexual marriage”. Let me say that again, NO CULTURE IN HISTORY HAS ALLOWED/BELIEVED IN “HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE” PRIOR TO THESE TIMES.

Even societies that were tolerant, even approving, homosexual activity (i.e. Ancient Greece and Rome) would never have allowed two men or two women to marry. Marriage was ALWAYS between men and women, although it may have been polygamous.

 

[SHW]

Homosexual marriage or gay marriage is not biologically possible.

God determined that a man and a woman make a marriage and they become one because of their biological differences and their biological complementarity. Marriage as defined by God ensures the continuation of the human race. It is a biologically impossible for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman using God’s definition for marriage.

No one should try to change God’s definition of marriage. Call it a civil union or whatever but don’t hijack the term “marriage” and change its definition.

“Gay” used to commonly mean “happy,” "joyous,"and “light-hearted” and was a very nice name for a female. Now, it has been taken over so that no other definition is used for it except for deviant behavior. I pity all the poor women who were named “Gay” and who have had their name definition stolen from them.

Pax,
SHW

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

And here is some *real *courage.

Thanks for sharing the site. It doesn’t look like they are trying to “change” a homosexual to a heterosexual. They are calling them to a life with Christ which would put chastity in the forefront of their sexuality. This is an absolutely beautiful thing. I am not homosexual. I am divorced…and I refuse to try to get an annullment. I am believing that my marriage was Sacramental…therefore, I am called to celibacy. And I have never felt so free. Just as St. Paul describes it in the Bible. No, it has not always been easy. But once I made up my mind that I was going to be celibate for the rest of my life (in my sexual prime, might I add), God’s grace came pouring in to help me. God is good…ALL of the time!!!

 

[Publisher]

Homosexual marriage or gay marriage is not biologically possible.

God determined that a man and a woman make a marriage and they become one because of their biological differences and their biological complementarity. Marriage as defined by God ensures the continuation of the human race. It is a biologically impossible for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman using God’s definition for marriage.

No one should try to change God’s definition of marriage. Call it a civil union or whatever but don’t hijack the term “marriage” and change its definition.

“Gay” used to commonly mean “happy,” "joyous,"and “light-hearted” and was a very nice name for a female. Now, it has been taken over so that no other definition is used for it except for deviant behavior. I pity all the poor women who were named “Gay” and who have had their name definition stolen from them.

Pax,
SHW

“Marriage” as defined by your religious institution prohibits same sex partners from “marriage”…“Marriage” as defined by some states of the US and many countries DO allow “marriage”…they do not use the religious definition…but they do call it “marriage”…not only possible…but IS…contrary to what the Catholic church teaches.

 

[magdelaine]

And I have never felt so free.

Amen, sister. True freedom, through Christ, is indescribably beautiful.

 

[magdelaine]

“Marriage” as defined by your religious institution prohibits same sex partners from “marriage”…“Marriage” as defined by some states of the US and many countries DO allow “marriage”…they do not use the religious definition…but they do call it “marriage”…not only possible…but IS…contrary to what the Catholic church teaches.

Show me, in history, that there has been one society in which there has been homosexual “marriage”. Excluding the last 50 years, of course. You can’t find one. Why is that? Because marriage is a **human **definition. It goes beyond religion, and it is intrinsically linked to biology; specifically biological reproduction and raising the next generation. Just because the boomers made a frakking mess of the institution doesn’t mean that its meaning has changed.

 

[Publisher]

Show me, in history, that there has been one society in which there has been homosexual “marriage”. Excluding the last 50 years, of course. You can’t find one. Why is that? Because marriage is a **human **definition. It goes beyond religion, and it is intrinsically linked to biology; specifically biological reproduction and raising the next generation. Just because the boomers made a frakking mess of the institution doesn’t mean that its meaning has changed.

One reason is that we as a society are coming to grips with issued dealing with sexuality. For millenia we have had “constructs” of gender…we now know through psychology and studies in human sexuality, sexual orientation and gender are related closely but not the same. We have come to see the difference between socially constructed gender roles and sexual orientation…our understanding of these things are more recent…in many ways “gay”, “straight”, “bisexual” are also constructs…concepts unkown in previous centuries as the “norm” was heterosexual…no one considered “sexual orientation” of individuals…any deviation from the “norm” of society with gender roles was looked upon with suspicion…“different is dead”…sexual psychology and orientations are modern constructs, of which our ancestors had no concept of.

 

[Benadam]

You call THAT courage? Denying oneself in the name of religious lies is not courage.

do you suggest that the religious view of marriage is a lie or that marriage it’self doesn’t really exist.

Actually we want the legal definition changed, couldn’t care less about what religious people say it is or isn’t.

I notice that this is very true. That redefining what something is or isn’t, when it comes to marriage , doesn’t require a view that can define what it really is, or a view of it at all.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Jesus N Cherie;4817733...:

the same as sex between heterosexuals who use contraception.
.

Not that I disagree with your post, I just a have a problem with this last line. Heterosexual couples are just as open to life as post-menopausal women, BIOLOGICALLY. I know many “tubal ligation babies” or “Vasectomy babies” and even more babies born despite the use of other forms of contraception. Conception happens far more often with birth control than post-menopause.

Non-biologically, they are not in wholeness, but you get the idea

birth control fails…post menopause requires heavenly intervention.

 

[goofyjim]

Thanks for sharing the site. It doesn’t look like they are trying to “change” a homosexual to a heterosexual. They are calling them to a life with Christ which would put chastity in the forefront of their sexuality. This is an absolutely beautiful thing. I am not homosexual. I am divorced…and I refuse to try to get an annullment. I am believing that my marriage was Sacramental…therefore, I am called to celibacy. And I have never felt so free. Just as St. Paul describes it in the Bible. No, it has not always been easy. But once I made up my mind that I was going to be celibate for the rest of my life (in my sexual prime, might I add), God’s grace came pouring in to help me. God is good…ALL of the time!!!

I put chastity in the forefront but I am still homosexual. I have just as much experienced the transforming power of Christ. Yet there are some who insist that that can’t be true if I still acknowledge being homosexual. It’s chastity that matters, not the sexual orientation. St. Paul was stating that active homosexuals would be excluded not all those who identified a such but remained celibate.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I put chastity in the forefront but I am still homosexual. I have just as much experienced the transforming power of Christ. Yet there are some who insist that that can’t be true if I still acknowledge being homosexual. It’s chastity that matters, not the sexual orientation. St. Paul was stating that active homosexuals would be excluded not all those who identified a such but remained celibate.

You are absolutely correct!!! It matters not at all who one is attracted to if one is choosing chastity and celibacy.
None who choose Christ over their own desires ever has or will be excluded.
Your homosexuality is not offensive in the least if you are choosing celibacy. Just as my divorced (Because of his lewd conduct) state is not offensive if I am choosing celibacy.

I am so glad you are involved in this conversation. Thank you for standing in witness. God bless you very much.

 

[jmallon764]

This question came up in a different thread on the “Social Justice” Forum. I think it worth its own thread if nobody minds…

---

“The point is legal marriage, here…upon which religious points of view don’t have bearing. No one’s pushing for the catholic church to hold gay marriages…so where are the reasons that gays shouldn’t be able to marry in the eyes of the state? Anyone?”***

And this was my answer:
*
I’ll grant to lleave the Church out of it for the sake of argument (though you really cannot for I would argue that one can only fully separate the Church from the State by holding to no belief in God and His creation.) Thus we acknowledge the State as having her own authority to establish and regulate juridical entities, such as marriage, which she ought to and does.

So homosexual marriage would then be held to be a ‘juridical’ or legal entity with its own rights, norms and privileges in society. That is fine to a certain point for we do need to distinguish carefully between such possible legal entities. Let me start with just a few (the list could be endless and all signs seem to show that it will be) such as marriage between a single man and a single woman as verses marriage between a man and several women or between two women, or between a woman and a dog (don’t laugh) or between a man and a boy, etc… Thus we seem to have a possible chaos only revealing the failure of the state to adequately protect and insure the temporal life and happiness of her constituents (and I mean here particularly children who are either the natural product of such unions or the ‘artificial’ product of gay marriage.)
*

Fr. Mike

hello this is jacob the freindlly atheist here to point out this big problem in soceity
FIRST let me start by saying that even though it is legal why do you care in the end their not going to your heven so let them be as they be for here is my story and it is indeed persuvasive
ive always been an odball nothing wrong metely or physicly but i have been teased and abused for me joning cheer squad at school though i am heterosexual i got into fights or broke down in tears nearly every day i even lost control and laid hands on a freind wich i am sorry for but then in highschool i join football but little changes although they lightentd up a little bit then recently imet a gay guy who im now best freinds with he is the only one who understands me in slightest so ive grown acostumed to him being their for me he is nice and more caring than many of you sorry for that comment but i was called an abomination recently so he is the only one i know who i can share with tell me is that a sin i think not
-sceincerly
jacob mallon