The Marriage Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ophelia23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike_from_NJ said:
You can see how people who differ with you on this matter aren’t going to put much stock in that argument. It’s like me saying that the waitress always gets my order right if I discount the times that she got it wrong. It’s accurate, but tries to hide the fact that in the past the waitress has made a mistake.

If you take away all of the marraiges that have involved something other than 1 man and 1 woman, it doesn’t remove the fact that they existed. Abritrarily saying ‘those don’t count’ on anything that disagrees with your position will not support said position.
Click to expand...
Nobody says they don’t count but they are hardly traditional.

The 2 most famous couples in the Bible are Adam and Eve and Joseph and Mary and we can look at Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth and Zacharias, etc.

If you have a million marriages and 99% of them as in the United States are between a man and a woman, then that is traditional and even in a historic context if you counted every marriage that ever was in the US. Yes, you had some Polygamists in Utah and in other states but they really are not traditional. Even Thomas Jefferson drafted legislation against Polygamy.

You’re logic is trying to say that something that really doesn’t have tradition or much at all and then for your point, then trying to say it is traditional.
 
Yet, also Mike From NJ; I do recognize to many people, marriage could be subjective as to what it means. This is so.
 
DaddyGirl said:
It looks as though the majority around you do not have the same beliefs, feelings, and thoughts as you.
Are you friendly with any of these neighbors? If I were in your position and the majority around me believed something drastically differently than I did, I’d want to talk to them and find out what they do believe and why. They may have very good reasons that you do not know about.

Also, if your state legalizes same-sex marriage…assuming you are not gay, it will not directly affect your own beliefs, church, or life…so perhaps you don’t need to “battle” so much. These are civil unions that have nothing to do with religious marriages in your church or any other church.
In the same way that same-sex couples wouldn’t agree with your way of life and the doctrines of the church you follow–but they don’t interfere with your own personal life…perhaps you, too, can let a group different than your own live the way they believe, too?
Click to expand...
Yea I guess pushing “gay rights” and “mix it up” day doesn’t affect my life, if my kid is going to public school?
 
exnihilo said:
I certainly believe in intuition. But for such a serious matter I think we should actually take the time to reason it out. If gut level beliefs are to be our guide then for most of history the intuition of mankind was that homosexual behavior was disordered. The burden of proof should be on the people who want to make a change. Historically children were not given to gay couples to raise. This is the novel idea and this is the idea that demands reason and proof.
Click to expand...
Just because something was historically done doesn’t make it right. That was the argument with slavery - our country was founded on a slavery-based economy. Yet in spite of this, those who prevailed knew without the evidence in history that it was wrong to enslave another person. I don’t see how anyone would see that it is wrong to keep a child away from a permanent, committed, loving family and household. Just because children have historically been left to age out of orphanages doesn’t make that OK. I’m sure people who happened to also be gay had adopted children in the past. What’s actually changed is that we are now more aware of their sexual orientation, and suddenly our children don’t deserve a loving home. 🤷
 
anilorak13ska said:
Just because something was historically done doesn’t make it right. That was the argument with slavery - our country was founded on a slavery-based economy. Yet in spite of this, those who prevailed knew without the evidence in history that it was wrong to enslave another person. I don’t see how anyone would see that it is wrong to keep a child away from a permanent, committed, loving family and household. Just because children have historically been left to age out of orphanages doesn’t make that OK. I’m sure people who happened to also be gay had adopted children in the past. What’s actually changed is that we are now more aware of their sexual orientation, and suddenly our children don’t deserve a loving home. 🤷
Click to expand...
That something has always been done and is morally correct is an excellent proof not to change things. Chattel slavery was never morally correct.

Throwing out words like “loving”, “committed” and “permanent” does not make such a situation moral, healthy, or acceptable.
 
I’m a little bit confused about the Catholic understanding of “sodomy”. From what I’ve heard and read the understanding is that “sodomy” is “Anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;”-Merriam-Webster.

And then it continues to say also bestiality.
So does this mean anything that doesn’t act as a “pro-creation” advancement? Like, anal sex, oral sex, bestiality… the receiving of masturbation as well as the personal act of masturbation?..
 
I was at the gym the yesterday and when I walked in a political group had tables setup inside the gym that was a Pro Gay Marriage group campaingning against the amendment. It really got under my skin that my gym would allow any political group in, whether they agree with my side of the issue or not.

This morning I sent an email to LA Fitness HQ to complain about allowing a politcal group inside the gym. I stated that I didn’t care whether it was pro or anti gay marriage, it is not appropriate at a gym and that if this is allowed at their facilities I will no longer be a memeber.
 
joelskinc said:
I’m a little bit confused about the Catholic understanding of “sodomy”. From what I’ve heard and read the understanding is that “sodomy” is “Anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;”-Merriam-Webster.

And then it continues to say also bestiality.
So does this mean anything that doesn’t act as a “pro-creation” advancement? Like, anal sex, oral sex, bestiality… the receiving of masturbation as well as the personal act of masturbation?..
Click to expand...
Masturbation is a sin unless it is part of the marital act that completes in a manner that could lead to pro-creation. In other words a man muse finish inside his wife but foreplay leading up to it can be OK under some circumstances. It is always wrong to self masturbate.
 
So any type of foreplay is welcomed as long as he hurries to ejaculate inside the woman, but if he doesn’t reach her in time… It’s considered… what?
 
And you also can’t masturbate yourself and then finish inside of her, if she allows it?..
 
joelskinc said:
So any type of foreplay is welcomed as long as he hurries to ejaculate inside the woman, but if he doesn’t reach her in time… It’s considered… what?
Click to expand...
No, not really. It’s sort of complicated and not everyone agrees on everything. However, it seems to me that foreplay in order to facilitate sex is OK but foreplay that essentially replaces the marital act only to finish inside the woman isn’t appropriate. This largely depends on what you call foreplay though, but genital stimulation should probably be limited to what is required to facilitated the marital act. This is different for men and women, men tend to require less and women more so this is different from one sex to the other and from person to person. However, if the foreplay gets to the point where the marital act is almost no existant then there is probably an issue.
 
TgirlMaria said:
Um, since when does your opinion of marriage in your religion trump my opinion of marriage in my religion? I thought we had freedom of religion and my religion supports same-sex marriage so why should you religion be higher regarded than mine? In support of religious freedom, same-sex marriage must be legalized on a federal level.
Click to expand...
Because you don’t have a right at the federal level to take from your neighbor to fund something he or she doesn’t agree with.

You can practice your religion until you interfere with someone else’s Constitutional rights.

There is no Constitutional (US) right to marriage.

Family law, like everything else not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is reserved to the states via the Plenary Powers clause.

Also, the only reason states have historically subsidized marriage is for economic reasons, not to make people feel a certain way.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Originally Posted by Jake Parker
anilorak13ska, 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.

Yes, Anilorak gives me hope, too!!! 👍
Click to expand...
Does her answer give you hope because it agrees with your opinion? You shouldn’t come to Catholicism looking to fit its dogmas into your opinions. It also shouldn’t surprise you that most of the Catholic people on an orthodox Catholic apologetic website don’t agree with you.

Catholicism has a perfectly good reason to oppose same-sex marriage: a man and woman are complimentary in nature to one another. Their sexual anatomies are, quite literally, made for each other. Not so with same-sex couples. In marriage, the first and foremost requirement is procreation, then mutual care of the spouse. For the requirement of procreation to be met, couples need only have the ability to perform the sexual act. They are not required to be fertile. God has performed miracles in fertility in the past, so the act is only necessary. Catholic couples who marry and intentionally do not have children without serious cause or use contraception are committing a grave sin.

Catholics CANNOT support gay marriage because, in the eyes of the Church, there is no valid marriage between same sex couples. It cannot support the deforming of an act that has been a sacred sacrament since Christ made it so. This applies even to ‘secular’ marriage.

Read here for more on Catholic marriage:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

If you want to find a religion that supports the views you do, I’m sure there is one out there. It is not recommended to come into the Catholic Church seeking to oppose its dogmas. It doesn’t make sense to me, at least. I wouldn’t join a religion if I were fundamentally opposed to its dogma.
 
thesmiter1 said:
Does her answer give you hope because it agrees with your opinion? You shouldn’t come to Catholicism looking to fit its dogmas into your opinions. It also shouldn’t surprise you that most of the Catholic people on an orthodox Catholic apologetic website don’t agree with you.

Catholicism has a perfectly good reason to oppose same-sex marriage: a man and woman are complimentary in nature to one another. Their sexual anatomies are, quite literally, made for each other. Not so with same-sex couples. In marriage, the first and foremost requirement is procreation, then mutual care of the spouse. For the requirement of procreation to be met, couples need only have the ability to perform the sexual act. They are not required to be fertile. God has performed miracles in fertility in the past, so the act is only necessary. Catholic couples who marry and intentionally do not have children without serious cause or use contraception are committing a grave sin.

Catholics CANNOT support gay marriage because, in the eyes of the Church, there is no valid marriage between same sex couples. It cannot support the deforming of an act that has been a sacred sacrament since Christ made it so. This applies even to ‘secular’ marriage.

Read here for more on Catholic marriage:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

If you want to find a religion that supports the views you do, I’m sure there is one out there. It is not recommended to come into the Catholic Church seeking to oppose its dogmas. It doesn’t make sense to me, at least. I wouldn’t join a religion if I were fundamentally opposed to its dogma.
Click to expand...
Amen, Smiter. We have to keep reminding, it seems, that the Catholic Church teachings on marriage are not going to change! These teachings, based on the knowledge that marriage is a Holy Sacrament, will never be altered to suit the whims of dissenters. In fact, the dissenters may be guilty of the sin of heresy if they actively and obstinately oppose Church teachings on marriage. The Catechism is very clear on this point. Those who are fundamentally opposed to Catholic dogma cannot legitimately receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.
 
TgirlMaria said:
My religion is at least 7,000 years older than yours and always supported same-sex marriage. However, you still haven’t answered my question. Marriage has been redefined at least five times in the Bible, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
What pagan groups specifically supported that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top