The Marriage Amendment

[Faithdancer]

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!!!

Any such hope based as it is on error is a completely false hope. Again, one must not join or remain in the Catholic Church seeking or expecting to change it; one must rather transform oneself, through prayer, virtuous living and the grace of God, to become worthy to be a member of the Catholic Church. It is obstinate and prideful, not to mention presumptuous toward God, to expect that the Church which Jesus Christ Himself established will change to suit one’s own lifestyle or socio-political agenda.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Gay people have paired up as couples throughout history, they just haven’t been allowed to get married, that is why we don’t have high stats on it, of course.

There’s plenty of information ranging from Western Europe to Canada to Masachusetts that clearly demonstrate the ill effects of so-called “gay marriage”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If gay people can legally marry…it doesn’t stop heterosexuals from getting married and procreating, as they have always done.

The state has no reason to invest in so-called “gay marriage” because children are not produced. The state’s only interest is economical, not to make people feel good about their sex lives.

It is so for the children, not the benefit of the partners.

Besides, people who don’t have kids are also part of the “building block” of society, too.

They can be, but why should their sex lives be subsidized? What’s in it for the state?

Building block means more than just being able to produce babies, which many people cannot do.

Some people who are sterile do not realize it, others who think they are sterile may not be. It would be too costly to mandate sterility tests for everyone.

tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Many aspects of a society need to be “built” to keep it thriving. There are societies that exist that churn out a lot of babies, but the society is not thriving and barely surviving.

The societies you refer to have children but do not have freedom. That is a huge reason why they are in such dire economic condition.

Every single country and state that has legal so-called “gay marriage” needs immigration to sustain population.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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?..

Bestiality is wrong period, and none of the acts you mention are permissible in our Faith without a Church-recognized marriage, the intention of ejaculating inside of the woman and the intention of renewing martial vows. I’d be very careful about masturbation of one-self even in marriage.

Marriage in the Catholic Church is not just a pleasure cruise

 

[BroomWagon]

I never understand why people bring up this point in this “debate”.

If gay people can legally marry…it doesn’t stop heterosexuals from getting married and procreating, as they have always done.

Besides, people who don’t have kids are also part of the “building block” of society, too. Building block means more than just being able to produce babies, which many people cannot do. Many aspects of a society need to be “built” to keep it thriving. There are societies that exist that churn out a lot of babies, but the society is not thriving and barely surviving.

I personally can’t understand why some people think society needs to redefine marriage to accomadate 2-3% of the population and change that definition for every man, woman and child in the population. I personally can’t understand why some people think marriage should become a “genderless” institution.

 

[rossum]

The state has no reason to invest in so-called “gay marriage” because children are not produced. The state’s only interest is economical, not to make people feel good about their sex lives.

It is so for the children, not the benefit of the partners.

The state has no reason to invest in so-called “pensioner marriage” because children are not produced by post-menopausal women.

There are a great many happily married people who either cannot, or will not, have children. Are you going to force all those legal marriages to be dissolved? That is where your logic leads.

They can be, but why should their sex lives be subsidized? What’s in it for the state?

Just think of all the money the state can save by not allowing women who have had hysterectomies to marry.

rossum

 

[BroomWagon]

The state has no reason to invest in so-called “pensioner marriage” because children are not produced by post-menopausal women.

There are a great many happily married people who either cannot, or will not, have children. Are you going to force all those legal marriages to be dissolved? That is where your logic leads.

Just think of all the money the state can save by not allowing women who have had hysterectomies to marry.

rossum

How would it save the state money?

When I read posts like yours, it is a different argument for the redefinition of marriage.

So, indeed, if you want to deny infertile or barren couples the right to marry, you should write your MPs or however they are called. We hear the same arguments here.

It’s been a lot in the news lately about how the widespread public in Scotland aren’t for the redefinition of Marriage, ditto for what I’ve seen about England.

 

[rossum]

How would it save the state money?

Tax breaks for married couples could be withdrawn from non-child-capable marriages.

So, indeed, if you want to deny infertile or barren couples the right to marry, you should write your MPs or however they are called. We hear the same arguments here.

You have never read, “A Modest Proposal…” have you?

rossum

 

[BroomWagon]

Tax breaks for married couples could be withdrawn from non-child-capable marriages.

You have never read, “A Modest Proposal…” have you?

rossum

You have heard of of Vincent De Paul

No one figure stands out so prominently in the history of the care of orphans as that of St. Vincent de Paul (1576-1660). To this work he attracted the gentlemen of the court, noble ladies, and simple peasants. In his distracted country he found the orphan the most appealing victim, and he met the situation with the skill of a general. No distinction was observed between foundlings and orphans in the beginning of his work with the Association of Charity; nor was there any distinction as to the condition of the children that were aided, other than that they were orphans, or abandoned, or the children of the poor. Seventeen years or more after that he established amongst noble women then “Ladies of Charity”. When the war between France and Austria had made orphans the most acute sufferers, St. Vincent de Paul secured as many as possible from the provinces, and had them cared for in Paris by Mlle le Gras and the Sisters of Charity then fully established. Three towns alone furnished no less than 1000 orphans under the age of seven years. The Sisters of Charity spread over the world, and ever since have been looked to for the protection of the orphan, or have been the inspiration for other orders seeking to perform the same work. When the Revolution broke out in France there were 426 houses of benevolence conducted in that country by the Sisters of Charity, and of these a large majority cared for orphans. They were suppressed, but many were reopened by Napoleon.

 

[rossum]

You have heard of of Vincent De Paul

What is is about some mindsets that that have to take everything literally?

Go back and read Swift again, and tell me at what point in his essay you realised that he wasn’t serious and that his actual proposals were different to the supposedly main one?

rossum

 

[OriginalJS]

There is a lot of heat in the arguments over same sex marriage. But, taking a calm look at social history in the US over the past century, it looks likely that same sex marriage, or whatever it may be called, will be a reality in the next generations. Less than a hundred years ago it was illegal in some states to sell contraceptives; now they are widely available in family oriented discount stores. Oral contraceptives for women are widely used. As recently as the 1960’s in many states it was difficult to get a divorce - a party seeking divorce had to prove grounds for the divorce and that was not easy to do if the opposing party resisted; starting in the late 60’s no fault dissolution swept through the country and, whether a dissolution would be granted was no longer a question, the questions were over the disposition of the property, spousal support, and child care. As of the 1950’s, cohabitation between nonmarried couples was illegal in many states - some of the old statutes refer to “lewdly and viciousy cohabiting.” Now cohabitation is so widespread that we even see euphemistic names in obituaries such as “special friend” and, the older, “significant other.” I have been to very big, expensive weddings where a child of the bride and groom is the flower girl or ring bearer. No one seems to think this unusual; or if they do they don’t comment about it. Not so long ago it was a scandal for a woman to be pregnant when she got married, that’s long since over. Many couple just openly cohabit. Adultery was illegal in many states. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Those restrictions are long gone. Abortion was illegal in most states - now there are legal means to elective abortion. Sexual activity between same sex couples was criminal in many states; it isn’t now. This list could go on and on. Significantly, for many, if not most, young people same sex relationships and attractions are “no big deal.” There have been strong rearguard actions against all of these developments, but ultimately they failed. The resistance to same sex marriage will untimately fail as well unless there is a sea change in American social views of monumental proportions.

 

[BroomWagon]

There is a lot of heat in the arguments over same sex marriage. But, taking a calm look at social history in the US over the past century, it looks likely that same sex marriage, or whatever it may be called, will be a reality in the next generations. Less than a hundred years ago it was illegal in some states to sell contraceptives; now they are widely available in family oriented discount stores. Oral contraceptives for women are widely used. As recently as the 1960’s in many states it was difficult to get a divorce - a party seeking divorce had to prove grounds for the divorce and that was not easy to do if the opposing party resisted; starting in the late 60’s no fault dissolution swept through the country and, whether a dissolution would be granted was no longer a question, the questions were over the disposition of the property, spousal support, and child care. As of the 1950’s, cohabitation between nonmarried couples was illegal in many states - some of the old statutes refer to “lewdly and viciousy cohabiting.” Now cohabitation is so widespread that we even see euphemistic names in obituaries such as “special friend” and, the older, “significant other.” I have been to very big, expensive weddings where a child of the bride and groom is the flower girl or ring bearer. No one seems to think this unusual; or if they do they don’t comment about it. Not so long ago it was a scandal for a woman to be pregnant when she got married, that’s long since over. Many couple just openly cohabit. Adultery was illegal in many states. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Those restrictions are long gone. Abortion was illegal in most states - now there are legal means to elective abortion. Sexual activity between same sex couples was criminal in many states; it isn’t now. This list could go on and on. Significantly, for many, if not most, young people same sex relationships and attractions are “no big deal.” There have been strong rearguard actions against all of these developments, but ultimately they failed. The resistance to same sex marriage will untimately fail as well unless there is a sea change in American social views of monumental proportions.

No, Same Sex Marriage is more comparable to First Cousins Marriages, in some states legal, in others, illegal, Polygamy or the legalize marijuana movement.

The Greeks and Romans both had their same sex attraction facets of society and both of those empires fell. There is nothing “modern” about same sex attractions.

Our country will go back to becoming right of the center and correct errors in the past that is obviously leading to the country’s downfall.

 

[OriginalJS]

No, Same Sex Marriage is more comparable to First Cousins Marriages, in some states legal, in others, illegal, Polygamy or the legalize marijuana movement.

The Greeks and Romans both had their same sex attraction facets of society and both of those empires fell. There is nothing “modern” about same sex attractions.

Our country will go back to becoming right of the center and correct errors in the past that is obviously leading to the country’s downfall.

If so, that will be the sea change I mentioned. You may be right, but given the way things have gone so far, I don’t see evidence of it happening.

 

[Slavonic]

The state has no reason to invest in so-called “gay marriage” because children are not produced. The state’s only interest is economical, not to make people feel good about their sex lives.

It is so for the children, not the benefit of the partners.

The state does see a difference between a couple and that of a person or couple raising children. The joint-filer status is given to any married couple, whether they have children or not. The dependent care credit is given to those raising children, whether that person or couple is married or not. These are very clear and definitive examples of what the state does to support married couples and those raising children. The other ways of looking at, one example being your quote above, is a roundabout, indirect example.

 

[nishkalank]

By reading the comment I conclude that the writer is full of assertion that like issues such as divorce, gay sex, infidelity which were held wrong sometime ago the gay marriage will become a fact and accepted norm of life in America.
Even though adultery or gay sex or infidelity does happen always, they are not accepted as a regular loveable act. The truths are not temporary but eternal. The fact that a good family life is heavenlike cannot be denied. Whatever be the trend of America, they will realise only when they face resultant calamities Of course, a godless mind wants to commit adultery and thinking contraceptives will help or an abortion can help or at the most death. Then can go to another and repeat. Is it wisdom or Foolishness ? The thinking machine is less used or used in perverted ways. And that is the reason for all modern godless thoughts

nishkalank

 

[anilorak13ska]

Tax breaks for married couples could be withdrawn from non-child-capable marriages.

Do people just assume that infertile people do not exist in the realm of this forum??? What tax breaks, pray tell, do my DH and I have that you’d like the government to take away from us bc we have not been blessed with a child? Because my understanding was that there are child tax credits for those with kids, not those with the potential to have kids.

Because I’m married to my husband, I have a right to visit him in the hospital, make decisions about our joint finances in the event we cannot do this together, make arrangements for his burial… In all honesty, I don’t see why these things should be reserved only for married couples. When we were engaged, why would I not have been allowed to visit him in the hospital? Those kinds of things really get me. And those are the kind of things I’d like to see everyone have access to if they are consenting adults who have established for themselves who they’d like to have these rights. Why is the government telling us what relationships give a person the right to know about their loved one’s health, for instance? Parents, yes, spouses yes, but best friends no. We’re adults. We should make these decisions for ourselves, not have the govt babysitting us.

 

[rossum]

Do people just assume that infertile people do not exist in the realm of this forum??? What tax breaks, pray tell, do my DH and I have that you’d like the government to take away from us bc we have not been blessed with a child? Because my understanding was that there are child tax credits for those with kids, not those with the potential to have kids.

I do not want to take away any tax breaks. I was asked a specific question about how the government could save money. I answered that specific question.

The question was part of a wider argument about, “Same sex couples cannot have children and so cannot be married,” and “Some opposite sex couples cannot have children either, so why aren’t they subject to teh same restriction?”

As far as I am concerned, all married, or Civil Partnered, couples should have the same tax breaks and other legal rights. The ability to have children is not relevant.

rossum

 

[kgra]

It highly concerning to me the amount of people, who I assume who are faithfilled people, yet support what they want to term same-sex marriage. Throughout the Bible, but especially St Paul was quite clear on homosexual activity. Romans 1:24-27 “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, … Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” God loved St. Paul enough to correct him as he was persecuting the early church. If he was not speaking the will of God about homosexuality, do you not think he would have been knocked off his horse again? “Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment for him - a woman. If that was St. Paul’s view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God’s view. And if it is God’s view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.”(Stand to Reason)

 

[RMW]

It highly concerning to me the amount of people, who I assume who are faithfilled people, yet support what they want to term same-sex marriage. Throughout the Bible, but especially St Paul was quite clear on homosexual activity. Romans 1:24-27 “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, … Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” God loved St. Paul enough to correct him as he was persecuting the early church. If he was not speaking the will of God about homosexuality, do you not think he would have been knocked off his horse again? “Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment for him - a woman. If that was St. Paul’s view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God’s view. And if it is God’s view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.”(Stand to Reason)

This concerns me, too, however I think the problem is broader than just same-sex marriage. It has to do with how badly catechized most Catholics are with respect to sexual ethics more generally. If you don’t understand why sex is something that is reserved for marriage, why the use of contraception is morally wrong, then you will have a very hard time understanding why homosexual acts are wrong, too, because you have already divorced sex from procreation. This is why I fear gay marriage is inevitable in the long run, even if we win a few battles in the short run.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

There is a lot of heat in the arguments over same sex marriage. But, taking a calm look at social history in the US over the past century, it looks likely that same sex marriage, or whatever it may be called, will be a reality in the next generations. Less than a hundred years ago it was illegal in some states to sell contraceptives; now they are widely available in family oriented discount stores. Oral contraceptives for women are widely used. As recently as the 1960’s in many states it was difficult to get a divorce - a party seeking divorce had to prove grounds for the divorce and that was not easy to do if the opposing party resisted; starting in the late 60’s no fault dissolution swept through the country and, whether a dissolution would be granted was no longer a question, the questions were over the disposition of the property, spousal support, and child care. As of the 1950’s, cohabitation between nonmarried couples was illegal in many states - some of the old statutes refer to “lewdly and viciousy cohabiting.” Now cohabitation is so widespread that we even see euphemistic names in obituaries such as “special friend” and, the older, “significant other.” I have been to very big, expensive weddings where a child of the bride and groom is the flower girl or ring bearer. No one seems to think this unusual; or if they do they don’t comment about it. Not so long ago it was a scandal for a woman to be pregnant when she got married, that’s long since over. Many couple just openly cohabit. Adultery was illegal in many states. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Those restrictions are long gone. Abortion was illegal in most states - now there are legal means to elective abortion. Sexual activity between same sex couples was criminal in many states; it isn’t now. This list could go on and on. Significantly, for many, if not most, young people same sex relationships and attractions are “no big deal.” There have been strong rearguard actions against all of these developments, but ultimately they failed. The resistance to same sex marriage will untimately fail as well unless there is a sea change in American social views of monumental proportions.

You have described very well our society’s gradual descent into a moral sewer. What do you see as the benefits to society of rampant sexual license and moral degredation?