Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[JimG]

IMO, it seems that SSM is not the problem, but merely a step on our downward course, the one at which people started taking notice.

The first step taken was acceptance of abc by at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, when the Anglicans decided, against the previous 1900 years’ of Christian teaching, that abc was moral.

The question is not what will SSM do to our society–there just isn’t that much *left *to do.

I agree. The devolution of marriage began at Lambeth in 1930, and continued with the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. Once the link between sex, marriage, and procreation was broken, gay marriage becomes inevitable–along with many other things such as no fault divorce, fatherless kids, and sexually active children. Now, big government has become the daddy, men are devalued as well.

 

[triumphguy]

Marriage as a legal institution has not really been around that long (in the scheme of things) in the English speaking world.

A few hundred years ago marriage was something done in Church for the rich, or by some other less formal means for the poor.

In England few people got married in the civil sense until relatively recently.

You need a “civil” society to be married “civilly” in!

 

[JimG]

The English speaking world hasn’t really been around all that long, but marriage has been around for millenia. Even societies which accepted homosexual activities with no problem reserved marriage to opposite sex couples.

 

[triumphguy]

By English I mean Anglo Saxon,so from circa 800.

Of course marriage has been around a long time, but not for everyone, and not in the way in which we think it today.

For hundreds of years a marriage was only important where land and wealth were involved. For 95% of the population marriage was an irrelevancy.

 

[wynnejj]

IMO, it seems that SSM is not the problem, but merely a step on our downward course, the one at which people started taking notice.

The first step taken was acceptance of abc by at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, when the Anglicans decided, against the previous 1900 years’ of Christian teaching, that abc was moral.

The question is not what will SSM do to our society–there just isn’t that much *left *to do.

Although I agree with the gist of this post in that SSM is an inevitable step that can trace its roots to widespread acceptance of contraception in Christian circles, there is an aspect of the 1st sentence that bothers me.

In trying to defend the faith in its assertion that SSM is an intrinsic evil that requires a non-negotiable legal proscription, then one must explain why it needs to be illegal. Saying that it is one of many moral failures, which do not have the endorsement of the Catholic Church for a legal remedy, suggests that SSM is just another problem that does not need a legal remedy.

For example, there is no endorsement in the Catholic Church to prosecute homosexual relationships or cohabitation relationships. So why go after SSM from a legal angle?

***Therefore, the reason seems to be primarily the innocent person factor … an adoptive child.

---

I don’t think the Church really cares about applying the word “marriage” to same-sex relationship in a legal sense because it might confound the definition of marriage as the prime reason for a legal remedy. There is no conflict distinguishing between church & state terminologies. For example, one is allowed to get a legal divorce (divide assets, child custody arrangements, etc), but is not allowed the religious sense of divorce (meaning a right to remarry).

 

[wynnejj]

**CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH **

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

 

[wynnejj]

**CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH **

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Note that there is much in this document that shows just how off base some of my thoughts were, for example these positions of the Church…

1. The idea that legalization of homosexual unions for any reason is cooperation in intrinsic evil. It seems to proscribe SSM, civil unions and domestic partnership - anything that might incentivize homosexual unions.
2. That the understanding of the term “marriage” does matter in the legal sense.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Note that there is much in this document that shows just how off base some of my thoughts were, for example these positions of the Church…

1. The idea that legalization of homosexual unions for any reason is cooperation in intrinsic evil. It seems to proscribe SSM, civil unions and domestic partnership - anything that might incentivize homosexual unions.
2. That the understanding of the term “marriage” does matter in the legal sense.

Yes. I was waiting for you to see this. I’m glad you have.

 

[wes144]

You “think it’ll bring doom”…yet there is no evidence for it yet…No evidence? It brought down Sodom and Gomorrah!, Admah and Zeboim!
Jesus said it would be in our day the end of the world too!
Deuteronomy 29:23 And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:

Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

I don’t need anyone whether cleric, politician, or sinner to tell me about homosexual rights. They are not rights, they are wrongs!

God set the standard of right and wrong and He does not change. Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not!

Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

It was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

Homosexuality is confusion, perversion, unlawful, unfruitful in bearing children, rebellion against God’s Creation and Plan, abnormal, etc.

There is hope for all that have been deceived!

1Corinthians 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

God still gives you the choice His Way and eternal life with Him or eternal death as a consequence for rebellious lawlessness.

2Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 ¶ And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
10 ¶ But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

2Peter 3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 ¶ Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Turn and live-for why will you die? Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

 

[wynnejj]

Yes. I was waiting for you to see this. I’m glad you have.

It is interesting that there is a no-compromise position against legalization of homosexual unions in any context, regardless of a simultaneous ban on same-sex “marriage” definition or adoption privileges. Apparently, the idea of confusing the young / society diminishing the institutions of marriage and family takes precedence over any other factors … such as reducing promiscuity / STDs by advocating monogamous homosexual unions. Yet, I see the logic and it makes perfect sense. The ends do not justify the means.

At the same time that there is a proscription on legalizing sexual unions that confuse young / society about the institutions of marriage and family, there seems to be less of a no-compromise position on tolerating those defacto sexual unions.

It makes me wonder about the position of the Church on attempts to remove fornication, adultery, and sodomy laws that are already established on the books in many states, yet maybe not enforced. Would that constitute an attempt to legalize extra-marital relations diminishing the institutions of marriage and family? Would that constitute formal cooperation in intrinsic evil?

 

[wes144]

The guy that pushed to have sodomy removed from all penalties is still trumpeting the position. His next step was to get “Don’t ask, don’t tell” into acceptance of homosexuals in the military by turning a blind eye and deaf ear. Bill Clinton’s latest step is talking up queer weddings. (Coming from a guy with no morals we should not be surprised!)

Billy Graham is giving the Biblical position against marriages between 2 guys or 2 girls.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. (CDF Document - linked by wynnejj)

What experience would this be, and how do we know that is not anecdotal?

Lots of children are deprived of ideal family situations. For example, there exist families who practice Islam, and raise their children in such an environment! No one proposes making Muslim unions or adoption illegal (at least, no one I would care to know).

So what are these dire consequences, specifically related to gay civil unions and adoption? We’ll let marriage alone for right now!

I read a lot of accusations, and a lot of speculation about what this might be, but nothing grounding these speculations.

They are interesting to read, though… I wonder who will be right?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What do you think they will be?

Let’s imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place?

 

[wes144]

Marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. God said, “Everything is very good.” He set the parameters for marriage; a man and a woman. A union between two people of the same sex is not marriage no matter who says so. It is a mirage!

Out of the closet and in your face! The perverted lifestyle is desirious of not only being accepted but considered as good or better than the one God designed for the human race!

2Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. And how do you think all of the posturing about homosexuality, social engineering and political speak will come out in the Presence of God?

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Let’s get away from philosophizing and self-justification.

Proverb 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 ¶ Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place?

I do not know. I have never been able to understand this.

It seems as though religions should be in this business. So if some religions want to marry men to men and others want to forbid it, the government shouldn’t care.

 

[St_Francis]

Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place?

Because government is the institutional arm of the society, and society has an interest is regulating marriage.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Because government is the institutional arm of the society, and society has an interest is regulating marriage.

Sure. But this can be done by regulating civil unions, right? The government could treat marriage as a contract, and you need to have two or more willing and sufficiently mature parties to enter into a contract.

Shouldn’t any further involvement in marriage risk stepping on religious toes?

 

[ignatius777]

What do you think they will be?

Let’s imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

There is no gain for society as a whole for the govt to sanction gay “marriage” but there certainly is for OMOW marriage. Gay “marriage” is strictly a self absorbed ploy to gain personal advantages for a select group. Thats not equal protection under the law.

 

[St_Francis]

Although I agree with the gist of this post in that SSM is an inevitable step that can trace its roots to widespread acceptance of contraception in Christian circles, there is an aspect of the 1st sentence that bothers me.

In trying to defend the faith in its assertion that SSM is an intrinsic evil that requires a non-negotiable legal proscription, then one must explain why it needs to be illegal. Saying that it is one of many moral failures, which do not have the endorsement of the Catholic Church for a legal remedy, suggests that SSM is just another problem that does not need a legal remedy.

The problem is the deviation between Western society’s current view of marriage and the Church’s view. Current society believes that marriage is a “celebration of love” rather than an institution to provide and provide for future members of the society.

It is not that I think that SSM is not a problem: it’s that the problem within society is related to the loss of understanding of what marriage is about, and *this *problem is related to abc.

Catholics cannot explain the immorality of SSM to people who do not understand marriage to begin with.

We are fortunate that people do seem to have a subconscious knowledge that SSM is bad, but I fear that this subconscious knowledge will be wiped out in the upcoming generation by propaganda, etc.

For example, there is no endorsement in the Catholic Church to prosecute homosexual relationships or cohabitation relationships. So why go after SSM from a legal angle?

I think that in the Catholic Church there is neither a proscription nor prohibition on prosecuting extra-marital or homosexual relationships at all. This is left to the prudential judgement of the society involved.

“Tolerance” in the Catholic sense is understanding that prosecution of an evil would cause more civil problems than allowing it to be. So, for example, not every lie uttered is illegal, because then *either *every time somone lied it would become a court case, which would be crazy; *or *people would lose respect for the law by continually breaking it. Therefore, lying is “tolerated,” in the Catholic sense.

---

Therefore, the reason seems to be primarily the innocent person factor … an adoptive child.

---

It is not only this issue that is a problem, but there is the fact that law reflects society and also forms society. By legalizing SSM, society is saying that this type of behavior is acceptable and taking another step down the road that marriage without the idea of children is acceptable.

I don’t think the Church really cares about applying the word “marriage” to same-sex relationship in a legal sense because it might confound the definition of marriage as the prime reason for a legal remedy. There is no conflict distinguishing between church & state terminologies. For example, one is allowed to get a legal divorce (divide assets, child custody arrangements, etc), but is not allowed the religious sense of divorce (meaning a right to remarry).

But look at the number of Catholics who do not understand the principle of not remarrying after divorce, so there is a problem.

 

[fix]

Because government is the institutional arm of the society, and society has an interest is regulating marriage.

Yes, and the law is a teacher. We already have people thinking abortion is a “right” as it is codified into law now. The same will be with homosexual persons claiming a “union”.

Legitimizing what is illegitimate is wrong.

It is said that vice asks for nothing more that to sit next to virtue. When vice is allowed to peacefully coexist with virtue, the later is corrupted. Virtue is only integral as along as it virgously combats its opposite.

            Same-sex ‘marriage’ destroys the integrity of true marriage by turning traditional marriage into a species within the marriage genus.  This broad marriage genus would supposedly encompass traditional marriage, homosexual or heterosexual unions, and whatever other bizarre new relationships might arise.  This new marriage genus, however, is not marriage.