L
livingwordunity
Guest
Right. A lie endorsed and enforced by the government is still a lie.
Statement of Chicago's Cardinal George Regarding Supreme Court Decisions on Marriage
- Status
B
BklynTony
Guest
I certainly respect your opinion. It bears to keep in mind homosexuality has been around as long as there has been life on earth. Not just with humans but other animals as well.
You avoid the issue of the thousands maybe millions of couples that choose not to have children…perhaps we sure not allow marriage for anyone unless they sign a binding contract with the government that they will have children…oh say within the first year of marriage or the marriage is void. I mean we have to worried about the procreation of civilization. The Catholic Church has long maintain that marriage is more than to produce children, although that is certainly a part of the institution. Married Couples at all time must leave open to the possibility of life through sexual activity is what the church teaches.If all who have not adhered to this command, the pews be empty at Sunday Mass. Having children cannot be an issue any longer unless the Church cracks down on practicing Catholics who use contraception protection to avoid having children. I am not advocating this or judging anything…I just want America to be free with equality for all.
As I said your opinion is more than welcome and respected
Tony
PS I am happily married to a WOMAN for a very very long time…have no other tendencies and no hidden agenda other than what I have stated.
PPS I do believe sexual attraction is not a choice , rather it is instilled at birth. I recognize some MAY choose for kicks or whatever, but a confirmed homosexual, I believe have no choice. We are all born with “tendencies” which lead us away from God.
It is our price to pay for the Sin of Adam and Eve,some more than others, but not their fault.
PPS If the good old US of A would come out and say that we as a country are based on a Christian Faith and it is our Country’s Religion which we all must practice…then I agree with most of what you say.LOL we all be in Jail too.
Right now this USA of ours will not even allow Prayers in School…I am against that as well…another Privilege(RIGHT) taken away
B
BklynTony
Guest
You say that your opposition to gay marriage is based on your religious views. Is that all? For myself, I base it upon human biology and anatomy before religion even comes into the picture THIS IS YOUR QUOTE…
So you believe God’s words , my faith is not enough conviction?? What happened to God FIRST family and country second. My religious views determine how I live and what I believe. I am just against government dictating freedoms which are allowed to some, but not to all. If we are going to live in a NON religious democracy we must extend equal freedom for all,and religion must be the Guardians for God’s word on how to live within that freedom
B
BklynTony
Guest
Marriage PRE DATES religion ??? Adam and Eve created by God…walked in Communion with Him. Marriage was blessed by God,marriage has always been an institution with God’s blessing , God’s intention for marriage was from the start,did you ever notice Adam and Eve did not have children until they were forced out of Eden ?
Sin allowed for imperfection …we are all NOT RIGHT with God from Birth , but he loves us ALL , no exception. Following God’s word while we are still sinners is what will set us free…but it is OUR choice to follow ,He gave us free will to go with our imperfections. I want freedom for all and to choose God’s word.
Do you not believe that a sexual attraction between a man and a woman will forever be 90% or more ? Do you think those with gay tendencies will inflict on others this “disease” like a flu ? The Catholic Church will never allow Gay marriage inside the bounds of the Church or anywhere as a Sacramental union. This I agree with…this type of marriage would never be Blessed. in a Catholic Church …people must choose.
J
JimG
Guest
Tony,
Your posts rambled all over the place, but let me just start with this item.
BklynTony:
But man and woman are capable of marital acts whether or not they are fertile. Same sex couples are not and never can be capable of marital acts. True conjugal relations are impossible to them. Consequently same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible, even from a natural standpoint. (It’s worth noting that infertility is not an impediment to marriage in Church law, but permanent incurable antecedent inability to engage in marital intercourse IS an impediment, because it makes conjugal relations impossible.)
Yes, marriage predates Christianity and Judaism and other religions. Now if you want to take the position that religion begins with Adam and Eve, okay, I’ll concede that marriage began with Adam and Eve, and it was always marriage between opposite sex couples, because ‘marriage’ between same sex couples was and remains impossible.
Your posts rambled all over the place, but let me just start with this item.
Yes, the Church teaches that marriage is for the good of the spouses as well as the procreation and raising of children. There is no teaching that any or every particular marital act must produce children. That would be impossible. The Church does teach, though, that every act of marital intercourse must be open to life. But before it can even be open to life it must first be a conjugal act. Only man and woman are capable of marital sexual relations. Their marital relations may never result in procreation, yet they are still marital acts—man and woman acting in a unitive conjugal way that is a pre-requisite to the possibility of procreation.
But man and woman are capable of marital acts whether or not they are fertile. Same sex couples are not and never can be capable of marital acts. True conjugal relations are impossible to them. Consequently same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible, even from a natural standpoint. (It’s worth noting that infertility is not an impediment to marriage in Church law, but permanent incurable antecedent inability to engage in marital intercourse IS an impediment, because it makes conjugal relations impossible.)
Yes, marriage predates Christianity and Judaism and other religions. Now if you want to take the position that religion begins with Adam and Eve, okay, I’ll concede that marriage began with Adam and Eve, and it was always marriage between opposite sex couples, because ‘marriage’ between same sex couples was and remains impossible.
B
BklynTony
Guest
Sometimes it is better to let things go…so…wishing you all God’s Blessing and a prayer
but let me ask…plan and simple so the rambling does not confuse////what do you think about a married man and woman who enjoy sex, but want nothing to do with children so contraception is their answer//not natural planning, just plan old artificial contraception…or having tubes tied . I mean take you pick,but they don’t want kids…those this not equate to any other type of relations according to your definition?
Anyway… That’s it for me… bantering is not really my thing…ciao
J
JimG
Guest
Thank you and wishing you blessings as well.
J
JimG
Guest
Well, I’ll reply to this question. First, let me say that there are many childless marriages which are so not by design or intent, but simply because that’s the way it turned out. A valid marriage doesn’t require children; it just requires openness to life.
That said, a couple who intend from the beginning to never be open to life have a defect in their marriage vows. What they intend does not correspond to what marriage is. So—I’m being hypothetical here—one or the other of the parties, if they were Catholics, could petition for a decree of nullity based on defective consent.
But—at least in such a case, during the course of the marriage, that intent could change. The couple could decide to be open to life, thereby remedying their defective consent.
But for a same sex couple, there could never be a change in consent which could make their sexual relations open to life.
Are there many invalid marriages today because of defective consent? Are there marriages which were entered with the lack of intent to permanence, lifelong fidelity, and openness to life? Perhaps so. That’s probably why there are so many decrees of nullity.
But the fact that there can be defective consent in a heterosexual marriage does nothing to make homosexual marriage even possible. It is not possible because there is no possibility of conjugal relations.
I think that the point to be made is that before same sex marriage came to be thought of as possible, real marriage had first to be destroyed.
PS—for a study of the effects of contraception on marriage and the culture, I recommend Mary Eberstadt’s book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”
B
BklynTony
Guest
Thank you and I rest my case.
I started by saying I am not for Homosexual marriages, but I believe in a free society as America , I thing equality should be extended to all…regardless of OUR religious convictions. As I stated before…The Church has the obligation to Shepard Her Flock . Once freedom is given, that does not mean it necessarily is the right thing to do. If you do not understand my point by now any further writing on this issue is a waste of time…therefore my correspondence on this issue on this level is over, but thank you for your time and patience.
B
BklynTony
Guest
PS I agree with the Cardinal and Bishop statements on Marriage and I hope they continue to preach what marriage is all about to homosexual and heterosexual alike. Not everyone that is marry in the church lives by God’s will. Countless numbers of Church married people have abortion and use contraception to prevent Children. Lets Preach as Catholics against gay marriage, contraception and the likes…but leave America out of it.
J
JimG
Guest
Thank you. I can understand your point about freedom, even freedom to do evil. Still, even in a free society, not all things are permitted. Otherwise there would be no need for laws and courts. We do not (yet), for example, permit marriage between adults and minors, or allow groups which enjoy sex between several members of each sex to legalize their relationships.
With respect to same sex marriage, the issue is not so much private homosexual acts, or even benefits for partners. Civil contracts could deal with much of that.
No, the greater danger is in changing the definition of marriage to include something which is nearly its opposite—a union which is not sexually complementary, intrinsically non-conjugal, non-life-giving, and of no benefit to the common good and the furtherance of civilization.
I mentioned before that in order for same sex marriage to be even thought possible, the institution of marriage had to be nearly destroyed. And so it has been, by contraception, by divorce, by fornication, by adultery and cohabitation, by abortion, by infidelity. And so now same sex marriage is seen as possible, and it is not what has destroyed the institution of marriage. But it will provide another nail in the coffin of marriage, stripping from it even the aspect of sexual complementarity. I don’t doubt that there will be worse to follow. The result will be generalized disintegration of family structures. The big losers in all this will be children and future generations.
B
BklynTony
Guest
Best Reply yet,so lets agree to disagree on America not taking away our freedoms. What you say is so very true…but look what taken away freedoms have done already… There is no God in School…our freedom to Pray is gone…what we say is scrutinized ,big size cokes will soon be outlawed in NY if Michael Bloomberg has his way…we can be recorded and spied on by government, what we eat , how we vote is all looked upon with suspicion Obama wants Catholics institutions to have health insurance which allows abortion and contraception be forced upon us … I could go on and on… I want choices by Government , and The Church to evangelize and educate in Morals and Faith. Don’t let Religion be used to take away freedom and equality by advocating anything lessens our Rights of all men are created equal and should be treated in like manner regardless if you agree or not. In the end God will have the last word. I think it will be Welcome to all that have loved.
B
BklynTony
Guest
Nothing different is going to happen with the Supreme Court decision…it is just going to be legal and freedom prevails,In a few years everything will be the same as it is today. Being gay is no longer hidden my most people. I believe sexual attraction, not even sexual…but a feeling for a desire to be with one person,regardless of same sex or opposite sex is born into a person. I am not defending gay marriage, but I think for a gay man to be in a desired relation with a woman is as impossible as a straight man is to have the same feelings for a guy. Maybe this is God’s way of birth control…you know natural planning(partially joking)
.
J
JimG
Guest
What I think is likely to happen is that anyone who does not accept gay marriage will have his freedom taken from him. Catholic institutions which do not accept gay marriage will be put out of business or marginalized, charged with hate speech, or forced to pay heavy fines for exercising their rights of conscience. Businesses which do not wish to take any part in gay marriage will be sued either civilly or criminally. Speaking about simple Christian morals will be prosecuted as hate speech. Yes, I think that gay marriage will take away our freedoms. The danger is real and increasing.
C
CaliLobo
Guest
Statutory rape is a crime with a victim. But adult gay relationships are private matters between consenting adults. We might think they are evil, but they do not, and it is not the government’s place to define what is evil.
No. There are hundreds of rights that gay spouses would be denied if we do not extend marriage rights to them. Insurance benefits, the laws of wills and trusts, employment benefits, the list goes on.
How about old couples who cannot conceive? How about infertile couples? Why is gay culture of no benefit to civilization, when there has always been gay culture historically?
No-fault divorce has been good for women because it saves them from abusive husbands.
Abortion has been good for women; it saves them from the financial and health burdens of unwanted pregnancy.
Contraception has been good for women for the same reasons. It also is good for modern marriages, as the cost of child-rearing is prohibitive, and money is the number one cause of divorces.
Fornication? Everyone has done it, if not actually, then in our minds. Sex is a normal urge. The Bible forbids it, but in real life, you gotta test drive the car to buy it.
Cohabitation? Some people need to live together to decide whether marriage is for them or not. Can we blame them?
Infidelity is evil, but most of it is due to people taking their spouses for granted. Gotta continue to work on the marriage 24/7.
I understand as a Catholic you are not comfortable with the above, but not everyone else is Catholic. It is inappropriate for a secular government to oppose these things on moral grounds alone.
We need to separate church and state. That brings freedom. Imposing Catholicism on the people is oppression. Hasn’t the Catholic Church learned from its history in Europe?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Fair points. It seems like only yesterday bishops were arguing about what constitutes SACRAMENTAL marriages. Personally I hope that matter doesn’t get lost in the entire discussion of who’s eligible for benefits and tax advantages inter alia. The laws and contracts which dealt with “marriage” benefits were poorly written and were only asking to be challenged one way or another IMO.
J
JimG
Guest
All of these question have been addressed numerous times. Opposite sex couples, whether fertile or infertile at any given time, are capable of conjugal sex; same sex couples are not.
Marriage has always been between man and woman because of their sexual complementarity, regardless of a culture’s religion or degree of state control. Same sex activity has often been accepted, but never as marriage.
It is not a matter of whether I as a Catholic am comfortable with generalized sexual license or not. It is a matter of whether our civilization can survive it. Read “Family and Civilization,” by Carle Zimmerman, which was written long before the culture had gotten so far out of hand. Read Adam and Eve After the Pill, to see the documented effects of the sexual revolution.
I’m old enough that I probably won’t have to worry about the worst effects of family destruction. But a lot of people will.
M
Mulligan2
Guest
Yes please, and at the republican convention as well. Religion and politics do not make good bedfellows. Keep them separate.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
That would contradict God’s commandment for us to be fruitful and multiply. There is no solid evidence that anyone is born with homosexual attraction. And if we think about it, sexual attraction doesn’t even normally develop until puberty.
Although some may have to struggle with same-sex attraction for the rest of their life some who once had same-sex attraction have gotten over it. For some it is a phase they go through. And there’s strong evidence that homosexual attraction can be a result of getting molested by someone of the same sex as a child as the following study shows:
“In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.” - California School of Professional Psychology
The average homosexual is statistically more promiscuous than the average heterosexual, and this, combined with the fact that anal sex is high risk, unnatural, unhealthy, and filthy, could account for why a much larger proportion of the “gay” community has HIV/AIDS and other STD’s.
AIDS Timeline:
“1981 -CDC reports first cases of rare pneumonia in young gay men – later determined to be AIDS-related – in June 5 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). This marks the official beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.”
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections” – CDC
“Given the starkness and the enduring nature of the disparate impact on gay and bisexual men, it is important to significantly reprioritize resources and attention on this community. The United States cannot reduce the number of HIV infections nationally without better addressing HIV among gay and bisexual men…Even though gay and bisexual men comprise only two percent of the U.S. population (4 percent of men)” – Obama (bold emphasis given in Obama’s 2010 Whitehouse report)
“Disparities in HIV infection also exist between gay and bisexual men and heterosexual populations. Recently, the CDC announced that gay and bisexual men in the United States are 44 to 86 times more likely to become infected with HIV than heterosexual men, and 40 to 77 times more likely to become infected than women.” – Obama
“Gay and bisexual men comprise the majority of people with HIV who have died in the United States.” - Obama
Homosexuals rejected marriage, and now they want their relationship to be considered the same as the very thing they reject.
If they really believe that SSM is the same as marriage between one man and one woman why are they against marrying the opposite sex?
It makes zero sense.
Sources:
CDC HIV/AIDS Global Epidemic Timeline
CDC - CDC Global HIV/AIDS Milestones - Global HIV/AIDS at CDC - Global HIV/AIDS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
WebMD
California School of Professional Psychology
L
livingwordunity
Guest
- Status