The Marriage Amendment

[exnihilo]

I don’t see how allowing for gay people to marry in any way imposes straight people to be affected. Murder is a different thing, because if it weren’t illegal, anyone could murder any of us and not be punished. Gay marriage only affects gay people, who without the law will still be gay and will still be in a relationship whether we like it or not. I guess I don’t see the threat or harm that comes to society at large from people’s private sexual lives.

My first comment is it always interests me where society becomes libertarian. We have a huge government that has laws that cover just about every human activity and interaction. Next I’d say that gay marriage is by its nature society recognizing, promoting and endorsing homosexual unions as being equal to marriage. Marriage is the building block of society. From marriage comes the family. From many families comes society. Whereas procreative sex creates the family homosexual sex does not. In fact homosexual sex subverts the procreative aspect of sexuality. It simply makes no sense to base a society on homosexual sex. Finally I’d add that I personally find gay ‘marriage’ insulting. My parents were divorced. In order for gay ‘marriage’ to be equal to real marriage you have to assert that raising children in the absence of a mother or father is a good thing. Having experienced the reality of that tragedy, inflicted on innocent children, I find gay ‘marriage’ deeply disturbing.

 

[Jake_Parker]

anilorak13ska, you give me hope! This is exactly how I feel:

I find drive-through Vegas marriages a mockery of the holy institution of marriage. I do not find two adults who love each other and want to commit to each other, even if we agree that their love/attraction is misguided or contrary to God’s law, in any way a “mockery”. They actually want what we want - a lifelong commitment and all that comes with it. They do not take it lightly, like half the heterosexual couples who divorce, many without much thought to reconciliation. If they didn’t honor marriage and what it stands for, I don’t think they’d be fighting so hard to be allowed to marry. That’s much more praiseworthy than a heterosexual Las Vegas drive-through “marriage” that is doomed to fail within the year.

I’ve been on this forum for about a week now trying to see how Catholics view different issues, especially this same-sex marriage issue. I was very close to just leaving this site and forgetting about becoming Catholic. After seeing an answer like yours, I will still consider Catholicism.

My parents were divorced. In order for gay ‘marriage’ to be equal to real marriage you have to assert that raising children in the absence of a mother or father is a good thing. Having experienced the reality of that tragedy, inflicted on innocent children, I find gay ‘marriage’ deeply disturbing.

This reminded me of something. I was talking with a friend that went to her first mass one Sunday morning where they talked about same-sex parents. She told me how they were saying it was an awful and disgusting thing. Hearing this made me angry, and it hurt her personally because she was raised by two wonderful mothers. I see absolutely no reason why two same-sex couples shouldn’t have the right to raise children. There are so many heterosexual couples that would be much worse candidates for adoption than homosexual couples. But because they are not a male and female, suddenly they’re just not fit to raise kids? What about all the single parents out there who do a heck of a job when they’re spouse leaves them!? Are those single parents not fit to raise children because the kids don’t have the other parent there?

 

[maryj]

anilorak13ska, you give me hope! This is exactly how I feel:

I’ve been on this forum for about a week now trying to see how Catholics view different issues, especially this same-sex marriage issue. I was very close to just leaving this site and forgetting about becoming Catholic. After seeing an answer like yours, I will still consider Catholicism.

This reminded me of something. I was talking with a friend that went to her first mass one Sunday morning where they talked about same-sex parents. She told me how they were saying it was an awful and disgusting thing. Hearing this made me angry, and it hurt her personally because she was raised by two wonderful mothers. I see absolutely no reason why two same-sex couples shouldn’t have the right to raise children. There are so many heterosexual couples that would be much worse candidates for adoption than homosexual couples. But because they are not a male and female, suddenly they’re just not fit to raise kids? What about all the single parents out there who do a heck of a job when they’re spouse leaves them!? Are those single parents not fit to raise children because the kids don’t have the other parent there?

One simple question…
What did God intend marriage for?

 

[maryj]

I find drive-through Vegas marriages a mockery of the holy institution of marriage. I do not find two adults who love each other and want to commit to each other, even if we agree that their love/attraction is misguided or contrary to God’s law, in any way a “mockery”. They actually want what we want - a lifelong commitment and all that comes with it. They do not take it lightly, like half the heterosexual couples who divorce, many without much thought to reconciliation. If they didn’t honor marriage and what it stands for, I don’t think they’d be fighting so hard to be allowed to marry. :shrug:That’s much more praiseworthy than a heterosexual Las Vegas drive-through “marriage” that is doomed to fail within the year.

Same question for you…
What did God intend marriage for?

 

[interestedman]

The State of Minnesota will be voting this November on the Marriage Amendment. The Amendment is designed to officially define marriage legally as being between one man and one woman. While the stereotypical view of Minnesota is a lot of Lutherans eating their lutefisk in the Church Basement (which really is entirely true…) it is a blue state that has very liberal leanings. I am truthfully concerned about this November vote.

We have a ‘Vote Yes: One Man, One Woman’ sign in our yard… but when I go to the sidewalk and look down the street, I am overwhelmed by the number of bright orange “Vote No!” signs. Having the sign in our yard has already identified us as hate filled bigots by some. It feels like a battle that can’t be won. Losing this nearly guarantees the legalization of same-sex “marriages” in our state.

Please pray. Please join me in prayer for my state, and the others who are voting this year on the same issue. I believe there are five states total that are voting on this issue.

So if this law passed or it did not pass how would it effect you?

 

[interestedman]

I’m too old, not really… When I graduated High School in 1965 the following were considered perversions (or a crime) by most state and local governments and punisable.

• Any homosexual activity.
• Sodomy
• Incest

Now only incest is considered a perversion… With the way our country views sex, incest may be off the list in a decade or two.

I think when you graduated high school black people needed to go to the back of the bus too.

 

[interestedman]

What age do you think it would be OK for a young girl to have sex? It’s legal in Canada if the girl is 14. You surely don’t class that as paedophilia?

It is pretty close. Would you be ok with your 14 year old daughter having a boyfriend in his 30’s?

 

[interestedman]

My first comment is it always interests me where society becomes libertarian. We have a huge government that has laws that cover just about every human activity and interaction. Next I’d say that gay marriage is by its nature society recognizing, promoting and endorsing homosexual unions as being equal to marriage. Marriage is the building block of society. From marriage comes the family. From many families comes society. Whereas procreative sex creates the family homosexual sex does not. In fact homosexual sex subverts the procreative aspect of sexuality. It simply makes no sense to base a society on homosexual sex. Finally I’d add that I personally find gay ‘marriage’ insulting. My parents were divorced. In order for gay ‘marriage’ to be equal to real marriage you have to assert that raising children in the absence of a mother or father is a good thing. Having experienced the reality of that tragedy, inflicted on innocent children, I find gay ‘marriage’ deeply disturbing.

So two loving parents = 1 loving parent if both parents are the same sex? Yeah, somehow I don’t think so.

 

[Elsa1]

The State of Minnesota will be voting this November on the Marriage Amendment. The Amendment is designed to officially define marriage legally as being between one man and one woman. While the stereotypical view of Minnesota is a lot of Lutherans eating their lutefisk in the Church Basement (which really is entirely true…) it is a blue state that has very liberal leanings. I am truthfully concerned about this November vote.

We have a ‘Vote Yes: One Man, One Woman’ sign in our yard… but when I go to the sidewalk and look down the street, I am overwhelmed by the number of bright orange “Vote No!” signs. Having the sign in our yard has already identified us as hate filled bigots by some. It feels like a battle that can’t be won. Losing this nearly guarantees the legalization of same-sex “marriages” in our state.

Please pray. Please join me in prayer for my state, and the others who are voting this year on the same issue. I believe there are five states total that are voting on this issue.

I think the only way to combat what you are talking about is for religious people to begin to support abolishing civil marriage completely and putting marriege back in the hands of the non-secular or otherwise private/personal sector. We must seperate marriage and the state in order to save marriage. The only other option is to support stripping ALL financial and legal benefits from civil marriage. This is afterall the overwhelming reason the gay lobby wants access to civil marriage. And a heterosexual couple who wishes to marry should by all ethical measures have no need or desire for the state benefits. If they want those, then one can simply set them up via an attorney or other state form that would have nothing to do with civil marriage, just as single people need to do if they can someone close to them to have visitation rights if they are in the hospital, be a beneficiary or what have you…

 

[interestedman]

I think the only way to combat what you are talking about is for religious people to begin to support abolishing civil marriage completely and putting marriege back in the hands of the non-secular or otherwise private/personal sector. We must seperate marriage and the state in order to save marriage. The only other option is to support stripping ALL financial and legal benefits from civil marriage. This is afterall the overwhelming reason the gay lobby wants access to civil marriage. And a heterosexual couple who wishes to marry should by all ethical measures have no need or desire for the state benefits. If they want those, then one can simply set them up via an attorney or other state form that would have nothing to do with civil marriage, just as single people need to do if they can someone close to them to have visitation rights if they are in the hospital, be a beneficiary or what have you…

So you think anyone that isn’t religious should not be married? And that anyone that doesn’t get married in a church shouldn’t have any benefits of marriage?

 

[Elsa1]

So you think anyone that isn’t religious should not be married? And that anyone that doesn’t get married in a church shouldn’t have any benefits of marriage?

No, that’s not quite what I mean. I mean, in other words, that the civil marriage has outlived its uselfulness. If a non religious person wants to be married and clearly they have no interest in a religious marriage ceremony, then they could be married in an otherwise private ceremony, but it would not be a state ceremony. The state would not be involved in any way.

In terms of “benefits” of marriage, I fail to see why anyone should have special benefits under the law by virtue of being married. Why should that be? This is the entire reason the gay lobby is so hot under the collar to get a hold of civil marriage, because of the benefits the state grants by virtue of, very simply, having purchased a state marriage license. Either end civil marriage and return marriage to its natural and historical place, or strip all benefits from civil marriage which have no moral or ethical reason to be granted in the first place. But to be clear, in either case marriage should provide no special state benefits.

 

[maryj]

So if this law passed or it did not pass how would it effect you?

If passed, there will be a constitutional ammendment that marriage is between one man, and one woman. This will in the future, if legalizing same sex marriage in minnesota is brought forward, that a judge or the legislature will not be able to make the decision, it will be brought to a vote throughout the state. No one, not the church, not members of my parish, no one I know of is stating that same sex unions can not happen. Marriage is defined as one man, one woman. Words have definition, and the definition of marriage is what has been stated. Senator Franken of minnesota has disputed that “nuclear family” does not consist of one man, one woman with children, it’s a play on words on his part. There are all kinds of families, but a nuclear family is defined as stated. Studies published by the dept. of health and human services have shown that children coming from nuclear families do better in all sorts of areas, education, social, and even health. I will post a link to the study if requested.

 

[BroomWagon]

I’m unclear, haven’t ELCA, Evangelical Lutheran Church come out against this amendment? I think so. But certainly WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) is for Traditional Marriage.

Anyway, I saw the same thing on the street behind Ford Parkway, a bunch of “don’t limit marriage” signs and then one “Vote Yes”… but in the polls I think the measure is doing okay.

I live near the Mall of America, unfortunately, in my travels, it seems I see the “vote yes” sign up one day and perhaps a week later I dont’ see it. But this can not help the cause of the corrupt marriage movement.

 

[BroomWagon]

Also, I know of some nurse, young lady, she has a support traditional marriage sticker on her car and from all places, it came from the 700 Club, red sticker. Interesting.

 

[BroomWagon]

I think Minnesota will replicate Wisconsin’s vote of a few years ago and have Marriage defined in the state constitution as being between one man and one woman.

Thought this write up out of Wisconsin was really good: caids-wi.org/marriage/amendment-3.htm

Hope we follow WIsconsin’s lead.

---

Ford Parkway is of course a Union area I forgot to put in earlier, it is a disgrace that Union Democrats just support that platform among others.

 

[BroomWagon]

I think when you graduated high school black people needed to go to the back of the bus too.

Perhaps you can explain then why African-Americans have been one of the groups most for Marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman? North Carolina had at least 66% of African-Americans being for Marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman.

Let alone, California’s vote on Prop. 8 was heavily supported by Latinos and African-Americans.

And how about the story coming out of St. Paul that an African-American preacher came out for same sex marriage?? I’m rather sure he eventually lost his Church totally.

A Minnesota pastor who lost much of his congregation when he expressed support for same-sex marriage has been asking the public for donations to help pay off a $200,000 loan in hopes of keeping the United Church of Christ church open.
Read more at christianpost.com/news/pro-gay-marriage-pastor-abandoned-by-flock-in-danger-of-losing-minn-church-75663/#obse98tZQwel8Mez.99

christianpost.com/news/pro-gay-marriage-pastor-abandoned-by-flock-in-danger-of-losing-minn-church-75663/

 

[BroomWagon]

So if this law passed or it did not pass how would it effect you?

The response to this is yet another question I have asked proponents before.

Why would one believe they have the right to redefine marriage for every man, woman and child in a state such as Maine, Washington, Maryland and Minnesota, all voting this November on this issue? I think in this, it should be a State issue.

 

[interestedman]

If passed, there will be a constitutional ammendment that marriage is between one man, and one woman. This will in the future, if legalizing same sex marriage in minnesota is brought forward, that a judge or the legislature will not be able to make the decision, it will be brought to a vote throughout the state. No one, not the church, not members of my parish, no one I know of is stating that same sex unions can not happen. Marriage is defined as one man, one woman. Words have definition, and the definition of marriage is what has been stated. Senator Franken of minnesota has disputed that “nuclear family” does not consist of one man, one woman with children, it’s a play on words on his part. There are all kinds of families, but a nuclear family is defined as stated. Studies published by the dept. of health and human services have shown that children coming from nuclear families do better in all sorts of areas, education, social, and even health. I will post a link to the study if requested.

You didn’t answer my question at all. The correct answer is that in no way would this effect you.

 

[interestedman]

Perhaps you can explain then why African-Americans have been one of the groups most for Marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman? North Carolina had at least 66% of African-Americans being for Marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman.

Let alone, California’s vote on Prop. 8 was heavily supported by Latinos and African-Americans.

And how about the story coming out of St. Paul that an African-American preacher came out for same sex marriage?? I’m rather sure he eventually lost his Church totally.

christianpost.com/news/pro-gay-marriage-pastor-abandoned-by-flock-in-danger-of-losing-minn-church-75663/

Because latinos and african americans tend to be religious.

 

[BroomWagon]

Because latinos and african americans tend to be religious.

OR among certainly many variables:

datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

African American Children are 66% of the time in a single parent household.

Hispanic children are 41% of the time in a single parent household.

I don’t know about Latinos per se: but I know it has often been said that since in recent decades the African American family has suffered, maybe they appreciate the family structure more.