The Consequences of Homosexual Marriage

[buffalo]

Many people think that redefining marriage is a small matter that merely grants equality to homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth. This video gives a glimpse into the real consequences of redefining and undermining civilizations most basic institution—Marriage. An attack on marriage is an attack on our freedom at every level. Dont believe it? Take a look.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Don’t you think that lightly entering into marriage and divorce and remarriage that heterosexuals have shown a penchant for (to say nothing about freely given annullments) actually does more harm to traditional marriage and their children?

 

[buffalo]

Don’t you think that lightly entering into marriage and divorce and remarriage that heterosexuals have shown a penchant for (to say nothing about freely given annullments) actually does more harm to traditional marriage and their children?

Right - no fault divorce laws should be repealed. Young adults should be better prepared for marriage.

However, these failures do not justify homosexual marriage. Yours is a terrible argument.

 

[bpbasilphx]

First off, what did I say that was justifying same-sex marriage? Please be specific. Quote my exact words.

When heterosexuals themselves show more respect for marriage, they will be in a better position to talk about defending it.

Are you willing to work for laws making divorce more difficult and marriage after one nearly impossible?

If not, then you’re only promoting special rights for heterosexuals.

I might add, there were several false statements in this video. For one thing in 2008, the APA did not say there was no such thing as a gay gene, but simply that homosexuality is possibly more than a genetic issue. And if a state such as Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, then it behooves aspiring lawyers to be familiar with the applicable law. What if a Catholic were to take the exam and fail because s/he refused to answer questions about civil marriage and divorce or abortion? Would this be an abridgement of rights?

What if a Catholic magistrate in the execution of official duties were to be required to perform the marriage of civilly divorced Catholics?

 

[jwashu]

Mark Shea had and interesting blog on Friday about Protestants and in it he touched on what the Bible said about marriage… which was pretty much, oh… not much except for stuff in the OT.

Now we have tradition but most of the people protesting against Gay marriage aren’t Catholic… what are they basing their stuff off of?.. well not much, heh.

Truthfully I believe this should be a non-issue.

As Catholics we don’t recognize Civil Marriage. A person who is married in the Church can get a “divorce” to split property but they are still married in the eyes of God and the Church.

That’s my thought… take the state out of it. Let the state grant people the ability to share property in a civil sense, have health insurance etc… then if people want to have a Sacramental Marriage, they can get married in the Church.

This would stop all this back and forth. If a Gay couple believe that God is OK with Gay Marriage, so be it, I’m sure there are churches out there that will marry them.

Problem Solved… next…

Joe

 

[Joan_M]

**As Catholics we don’t recognize Civil Marriage. **A person who is married in the Church can get a “divorce” to split property but they are still married in the eyes of God and the Church.

That’s my thought… take the state out of it. Let the state grant people the ability to share property in a civil sense, have health insurance etc… then if people want to have a Sacramental Marriage, they can get married in the Church.

Joe

Actually, as Catholics, we DO recognize Civil Marriage - for non-Catholics. Only Catholics are required to marry in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians can utilize civil marriage and their marriage is sacramental, because their church does not require them to marry in church. So, civil marriage can be, and probably is, a valid sacramental marriage for all Christians except Catholics.

So, your argument just does not hold.

 

[buffalo]

First off, what did I say that was justifying same-sex marriage? Please be specific. Quote my exact words.

When heterosexuals themselves show more respect for marriage, they will be in a better position to talk about defending it.

Are you willing to work for laws making divorce more difficult and marriage after one nearly impossible?

If not, then you’re only promoting special rights for heterosexuals.

I might add, there were several false statements in this video. For one thing in 2008, the APA did not say there was no such thing as a gay gene, but simply that homosexuality is possibly more than a genetic issue. And if a state such as Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, then it behooves aspiring lawyers to be familiar with the applicable law. What if a Catholic were to take the exam and fail because s/he refused to answer questions about civil marriage and divorce or abortion? Would this be an abridgement of rights?

What if a Catholic magistrate in the execution of official duties were to be required to perform the marriage of civilly divorced Catholics?

Again, the failure to be perfect does not negate the truth.

 

[bpbasilphx]

What truth? Telling lies about homosexuality and homosexuals or anybody else is still telling lies.

I noticed that you did not actually answer my question about your false claim that I was justifying same-sex marriage, or even apologize for making it.

What the video stated about the APA saying that they have repudiated the idea of a gay gene DOES negate the truth concerning what the APA actually said.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” does not have a codicil saying “unless thy neighbor is gay.”

This is not dealing with an issue of being perfect. This is about simple justice: tell the truth.

 

[noclevername]

Buffalo, you have again failed to show anyone how a same sex marriage affects us. It simply doesn’t affect us. There are much worse things to worry about in this world.

 

[buffalo]

What truth? Telling lies about homosexuality and homosexuals or anybody else is still telling lies.

I noticed that you did not actually answer my question about your false claim that I was justifying same-sex marriage, or even apologize for making it.

What the video stated about the APA saying that they have repudiated the idea of a gay gene DOES negate the truth concerning what the APA actually said.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” does not have a codicil saying “unless thy neighbor is gay.”

This is not dealing with an issue of being perfect. This is about simple justice: tell the truth.

I see you disagree then with the Catechism. Is the Catechism lying?

 

[cthulhubryan]

Don’t you think that lightly entering into marriage and divorce and remarriage that heterosexuals have shown a penchant for (to say nothing about freely given annullments) actually does more harm to traditional marriage and their children?

It is true that no fault divorce has led us down this slippery slope. But that does not mean we should not try to stop the slide. Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan talked about “Defining Deviancy Down” meaning that if we keep lowering our standards to not make so many people feel bad, then soon the standards mean nothing.

No fault quickie divorces started society down the path of broken families, abortion, discarded children, gangs, drugs and crime. So to further trample marriage will only exacerbate the problem. Morally homosexual marriage is no different from plural marriage, marriage to animals and contract term marriages. Once you completely destroy the life-giving concept of marriage as between a man and woman you have shat upon another sacrament.

The farther down you push to concept of marriage, the more damage you do to society and the more disrespect you heap upon the words and teachings of God and His Church.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I see you disagree then with the Catechism. Is the Catechism lying?

---

**You’re deflecting by brining up the Catechism at this point.

I’m talking about what YOU actually said and what the VIDEO you linked to actually said.

Both were erroneous, and probably prevaricating.

You, for example, accused me of saying something I never said in your reply to my post, and you never apologized.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

I see you disagree then with the Catechism. Is the Catechism lying?

---

**You’re deflecting by bringing up the Catechism at this point.

I’m talking about what YOU actually said and what the VIDEO you linked to actually said.

Both were erroneous, if not prevaricating.

You, for example, accused me of saying something I never said in your reply to my initial post, and you never apologized.**

 

[mystagogia]

Come on, bpbasilphx, what happened here was that Buffalo posted a video critical of gay marriage and then you immediately chimed in with the typical liberal Potomac Two-Step. Your response to the gay marraige critique was an attempt to turn the tables and paint traditional marriage in an ill light in response. That’s a stock-n-trade Alinsky counter-measure.

Your response to Buffalo is far less than honest. That’s a fact.

 

[buffalo]

For the record -

Chastity and homosexuality
[2357](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2357.htm’) Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
[2359](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2359.htm’) Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Come on, bpbasilphx, what happened here was that Buffalo posted a video critical of gay marriage and then you immediately chimed in with the typical liberal Potomac Two-Step. Your response to the gay marraige critique was an attempt to turn the tables and paint traditional marriage in an ill light in response. That’s a stock-n-trade Alinsky counter-measure.

Your response to Buffalo is far less than honest. That’s a fact.

There were things in the video presented as fact that were in fact erroneous.

Contrary to what buffalo claimed, I’ve never said that I was supporting same-sex marriage.

Now you, mystagogia, please tell what what I said that is an attempt to “paint traditional marriage in an ill light.” Again, be specific, and do not deflect.

If disapproving frequent remarriage and divorce at civil law, to say nothing about the canonical fiction called “annullments” is painting marriage in a bad light, then one or the other of us does not know the meaning of words.

 

[bpbasilphx]

For the record -

Chastity and homosexuality
…

buffalo, please tell me what this quote from the CCC has to do with your false claim that my initial response to your posting supports same-sex marriage.

I’ve given up trying to make your retract your false statement about my words.

 

[cyberwolf001]

buffalo, please tell me what this quote from the CCC has to do with your false claim that my initial response to your posting supports same-sex marriage.

I’ve given up trying to make your retract your false statement about my words.

Your wasting your time. Any criticism of false apologetics or WORSE a decleration that Hetros need to work on there own sins against marriage is as good as being in the ranks of us suppoters of gay rights in there eyes.

 

[Dale_M]

Any criticism of false apologetics or WORSE a decleration that Hetros need to work on there own sins against marriage is as good as being in the ranks of us suppoters of gay rights in there eyes.

Its much, much easier to scapegoat gay marriage than to actually work on the threats which have been diminishing marriage over the past 50 years.

 

[buffalo]

Its much, much easier to scapegoat gay marriage than to actually work on the threats which have been diminishing marriage over the past 50 years.

A battle cannot be fought on two fronts?