Many Catholics, (more than half according to some polls) believe in gay marriage.
No, its religion. The only argument against gay marriage is a religious one.
The news reported that the Same Sex Marriage people have raised something like $6 million while the (Traditional) Marriage people have raised only a little over $1 million in their campaigns.
You offer no proof.
The state will still be involved, there will inevitably be disputes between the parties involved and the courts would have to be involved in resolving the dispute. Also it’s much more efficient to have the government create a standard marriage contract that it issues and enforces like we do now.
So to please 2-3% of the population, we should make marriage genderless? Not too sure about that.
Elsa is talking about what many have said, take marriage away from the government.
The fact that same sex marriage has been forced on the people of Iowa by rogue judges who have all been voted out by the people since, it does make it a bit more pertinent that there is a vote in Minnesota. Wisconsin voted for it way back in '06 I believe.I am also a resident of Minnesota. I am SO happy to see the orange signs everywhere.
Here is a great article from the Star Tribune (a Minneapolis/St.Paul newspaper):
"Here, for your reading pleasure, is what a yes vote and passage of the amendment will not do:
• It will not stop people from being gay. Nope. There is no such thing as antifairy dust. That guy in the coffee shop will not suddenly begin gawking at miniskirts and buying clashing furniture. There has been homosexuality among humans since Adam and Steve walked the Earth eons ago, and if you think it’s a choice, then you have not been paying attention. Consider this: Mychal Judge, the Catholic priest who died at the foot of the World Trade Center while helping New York firefighters, was both gay and celibate. Repeat after me: There is no lifestyle. You’re either gay or you’re not. Period.
• Voting yes will not stop gay couples from bearing or adopting children and raising them together. There are families near you doing just that right now, and, aside from some creative naming challenges for each parent, they’re normal families with normal joys and normal struggles. There is precisely zero chance of changing this.
• Voting yes will not improve your own marriage. If you and your spouse’s happiness depends on who else is married to whom, you don’t need to be in the voting booth. You need to be in counseling.
• Finally – get a load of this – voting yes will not stop gay couples from getting married. Wait, what?? How can that be? Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, but gay couples have been walking down the aisle, saying “I will,” wearing rings, cutting cake and going on honeymoons for years – right here in Minnesota. Many pastors and priests will marry a gay couple – after decent premarital counseling, of course. Jane can still refer to her “wife” and Steve can still gripe about his “husband” and, unless we want to set up a Nazi-like state, where we control how people speak in public, that isn’t going to change, either.
Well, gosh, if a yes vote won’t stop any of those things, what will it actually accomplish? From a practical standpoint, absolutely nothing: Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota – meaning that the state doesn’t recognize a family when it sees one.
So, why have we spent all the time and money to place the question on the ballot this November? Well, the stated reason is to protect marriage from the scary, deviant gays who will surely do something terrible to the institution by, well, honoring it.
The real reason it’s on the ballot is to create an issue that will excite and encourage social conservatives to come to the voting booths this November and vote against Democrats. This is right out of the Karl Rove and ALEC playbook: make 'em scared, make 'em mad, make 'em vote.
Same-sex couples are denied more than 515 state rights that pertain to married couples and 1,100 federal ones; a yes vote will make that denial a permanent part of the Minnesota Constitution. That’s it. So, we can talk about defending marriage and values until the cows come home. The only thing this amendment will do is make a very long list of legal and financial benefits forever unattainable for these families.
Do you really care if a gay couple gets to file their taxes together or buys a family fishing license? Because when it really comes down to it, that’s all they want. Whether we call them married, coupled, partnered or unioned is beside the point. They’re going to use whatever term they feel like using, and nobody can do squat about it.
So, not only should you vote no on the amendment, you should begin to consider the family-friendly thing: giving same-sex couples the 515-plus rights that they deserve. It’s the right thing to do. It’s the practical thing to do. It’s not hard to imagine them being married, raising children and having families. Because they already are."
[startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613531.html?page=1&c=y&refer=y]](http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613531.html?page=1&c=y&refer=y])
I will be proudly voting NO in November and am encouraging all my Christian friends to do the same! -Both Catholic & Protestant-
children from nuclear families do better in school, social settings, and even health wise…yes that affects me and the whole of society. do you wish my answer to be your “correct answer”?
And yet that is not what the church teaches, so those catholics are in direct conflict with what Holy Mother Church teaches.
Also the fact that of the signs that have been distrubuted with vote yes on them…seem to disappear or are vandalized within hours of them being put up. Like I said earlier, the sign on church property, in front of my parish dissappeared in one night.
I get the impression that you are somehow trying to win an argument here, whereas I am trying to learn about the church’s stance, and therefore am being open about my current impressions to see if there are legitimate answers that may change my mind. I was able to come around on the issue of birth control thanks to people who were kinds and understanding and not judgmental, who never tried to cyber-bully those who disagree with them by repeating questions that have obvious answers.
Hi Jake. I truly hope that you don’t base your impression of Catholicism on this forum. I’m a lifelong Catholic/revert, yet this is my third attempt to find a sense of community on this forum. I’ve never met so many judgmental and un-Christlike well-meaning (I think and hope) people as I have on these forums (I’m not referring to anyone in particular bc I don’t waste my time trying to keep track of who comes across as holier-than-thouanilorak13ska, you give me hope!
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.
). Please don’t judge Christ’s church on imperfect believers who fail to reflect on Luke 6:1-5, Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 23:1-8.
But there have been plenty of couples who were thought to be infertile who ended up having a child.I get the impression that you are somehow trying to win an argument here, whereas I am trying to learn about the church’s stance, and therefore am being open about my current impressions to see if there are legitimate answers that may change my mind. I was able to come around on the issue of birth control thanks to people who were kinds and understanding and not judgmental, who never tried to cyber-bully those who disagree with them by repeating questions that have obvious answers.
But ok, I’ll bite. Based on Genesis 1:28, God made us female and male for the sake of being fruitful, multiplying, and subduing the earth.
And yet, we do not use this as a reason to prevent celibacy for priests or religious. Why not? And what about infertile couples? Shouldn’t they be disallowed from marrying because their union is “useless”?
If the only reason God created marriage is for the sake of procreation, then He makes a lot of mistakes by allowing infertile couples like my DH and me from marrying each other, when He knows full well that we cannot conceive. And our sex/gender has nothing to do with this fact.
There are a number of cases where couples were thought to be infertile but still had a child.I get the impression that you are somehow trying to win an argument here, whereas I am trying to learn about the church’s stance, and therefore am being open about my current impressions to see if there are legitimate answers that may change my mind. I was able to come around on the issue of birth control thanks to people who were kinds and understanding and not judgmental, who never tried to cyber-bully those who disagree with them by repeating questions that have obvious answers.
But ok, I’ll bite. Based on Genesis 1:28, God made us female and male for the sake of being fruitful, multiplying, and subduing the earth.
And yet, we do not use this as a reason to prevent celibacy for priests or religious. Why not? And what about infertile couples? Shouldn’t they be disallowed from marrying because their union is “useless”?
If the only reason God created marriage is for the sake of procreation, then He makes a lot of mistakes by allowing infertile couples like my DH and me from marrying each other, when He knows full well that we cannot conceive. And our sex/gender has nothing to do with this fact.
Wrong impression!! I apologize if it came off that way. Priests are married, to the church, and they are very fruitful. And couples that are infertile are not disallowed from marrying, think of abraham and sara…even in their old age Sara conceived, because even older couples can be called to be open to life. Marriage is also unitive, but also open to life as our Creator intended. Jesus Christ began his ministries…at a wedding, where His first miracle was shown. So no, God did not make a mistake by allowing you and your husband to marry, marriage is both unitive and procreative…not either/or but both/and! Have hope in Him, my mother was 44 when I was born! Maybe you should pray to abraham and sara for their intercession, miracles happen…Praise be God!I get the impression that you are somehow trying to win an argument here, whereas I am trying to learn about the church’s stance, and therefore am being open about my current impressions to see if there are legitimate answers that may change my mind. I was able to come around on the issue of birth control thanks to people who were kinds and understanding and not judgmental, who never tried to cyber-bully those who disagree with them by repeating questions that have obvious answers.
But ok, I’ll bite. Based on Genesis 1:28, God made us female and male for the sake of being fruitful, multiplying, and subduing the earth.
And yet, we do not use this as a reason to prevent celibacy for priests or religious. Why not? And what about infertile couples? Shouldn’t they be disallowed from marrying because their union is “useless”?
If the only reason God created marriage is for the sake of procreation, then He makes a lot of mistakes by allowing infertile couples like my DH and me from marrying each other, when He knows full well that we cannot conceive. And our sex/gender has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand you mean well, but we have been praying for a miracle and continue to pray for a miracle, but if we believe God can create life without the usual requirements (egg, sperm, uterus), as He did with Mary and Jesus, then we could go so far as to say that same sex couples likewise could pray for a miracle. I’m not saying God would grant that miracle, but we do not know why God chooses to bless some with children and others He doesn’t.
