Teaching Kids the Truth About Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ummm… marriage is a public matter. If their relationship stayed in the bedroom, then they would not be attempting to be married.

Is the State “going into their bedroom”?
 
Last edited:
Point taken. I misspoke.

Pardon me that I want people to have the same rights as I do and that includes all people. That I am secure enough in what marriage is and what my marriage will be that same sex marriages don’t bother me.

They are getting the same rights as I do when married and I am okay with that.
 
The problem is that two men can’t have the right to marry. It’s against natural law. It’s not my law, but the creator’s. So the notion and attempt to marry same sex couples is a profanity of marriage. You should care.

You are expressing indifference towards God.
 
Last edited:
You’re not getting it. I don’t care because it doesn’t affect me in the least.

I’m not expressing indifference towards God. I am expressing indifference towards same sex marriages being called marriages by the state.
 
Just so you know… my criticism is in no way implying that I don’t have my own faults. I do. Yet defending Marriage for what it is created is not a fault. Indifference towards the violation of marriage by the State, is a fault.

When you say, “I don’t care… it doesn’t affect me.” That’s not brotherly love
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. Its brotherly love to tell them they are not married, nor can they, because it’s against the nature of the Creator.

Read Romans 1:24-27

Edit: granted, someone can be telling them out of pride and judgement instead of actual love.
 
Last edited:
That’s rejecting who they are.

The state says that their marriage is valid, therefore according to the state they are married. This is my argument. This is what I stand by. The state says they are validly married. They are married in the eyes of the state. Whether the Catholic church says they are validly married or not, the state does say it and I will call them married in accordance to the law.

Edit: That is my last response. This is becoming circular and I abhor circular arguments.
 
Last edited:
That lends credence to the deception.

Pope Francis refuses to call it Marriage, but asks that we refer to it as a “civil union”.

It’s not only a religious recognition, but recognizing a natural law.
 
Last edited:
heidi_storage said:
Change the church sacrament because the state says that wrong is right and right wrong? What an appalling idea.
Click to expand...
Change the word we use.

Geepers creepers.

WE change the language WE use for the sacrament. Have our sacrament be wholly independent of whatever people do that has a government or other socio-political benefits.
rcwitness said:
Also, why would the Sacrament of marriage, or whatever it might be called, have no “social implications”? Marriage is a foundation of social implications!
Click to expand...
So do Holy Orders. But people don’t hand out nearly the level of benefits to Priests, nuns or even reverend. There are a handful of non-specific NPO and other tax benefits but that’s about it.

There isn’t really any reason why there should be a “marriage” benefit for married adults over the age of 62 who have no minors. There are some IRA deals that really only come into play post children, legal implications, decision making, inheritance…etc. All of these rather basic things that really have little to do with marriage as an institution for raising children.

Basically, the word “marriage” in the vernacular has become tied up in a bunch of things that it has no business being in. Two adults should be able to enjoy those benefits whomever they are. Since they refuse to call it something else, renaming the sacrament would likely preserve the dignity of the sacrament.
 
Last edited:
Well, then it is time that people of faith should ban together and reclaim the word for what it truly means. It’s not just Catholics who believe in the sanctity of marriage. This “redefining” affects many people of many faiths and denominations. Stop letting people with agendas rename blue pink and apples bananas and stand up for truth and accuracy. Newspeak should be kept in 1984. In the real world, words have meanings and they matter.
 
You’re right. Let’s get rid of “man,” “woman,” "boy, " “girl,” too. These gendered words now have such a lot of baggage associated with them that they used not to have.
 
Might as well make “gender reveal parties” illegal. Those parents are obviously abusive. Good parents don’t use arbitrary terms to identify their off spring.
 
heidi_storage said:
You’re right. Let’s get rid of “man,” “woman,” "boy, " “girl,” too. These gendered words now have such a lot of baggage associated with them that they used not to have.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s already happening but it’s besides the point. I’m not talking about gender here, I’m speaking to the name of a sacrament that is administered by the Church. Our word was taken long before “Gay marriage”…but since it was all “benefits” no one cared.
 
A fight over semantics can be a fight to assert reality. This is now the case both with sex and with marriage.
 
heidi_storage said:
A fight over semantics can be a fight to assert reality. This is now the case both with sex and with marriage.
Click to expand...
Yes, a large part of the culture war now is the secularist assertion of a right to create our own reality. Man can be woman, woman can be man. Gender can be fluid. Marriage can be whatever we want it to be. Sex cam be non-procreative. Family once was mom, dad, and children but can now be any assortment of individuals. God can be made in our image. Catholicism may be the last bastion of realism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top