- Status
S
sweetchuck
Guest
that’s a good article. i’d like to understand theologically why gay marriage is such a threat to the family, though. I don’t doubt that it is, I just want to better know the Church’s explanation
T
Tyler_Smedley
Guest
Here is a non theological answer, but one that is very true. The Family is the basic unit for society, if Satan is allowed to corupt that basic unit and institute his own distortion of what God has made perfectly imagine the chaos. Imagine what that would do to the children that they would be allowed to adopt. Children need both mother and father and we have seen the effects of lack of either. It just such a fundamental attack on the Christian moral pricniples that it warrents strong oppisition by any who hold and teach the faith. This is by no means all inclusive of all the reasons I am sure that many people can add much more but it is a general idea.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Tyler Smedley:
R
Richardols
Guest
Tyler Smedley:
If you’re going to give a non-theological answer, then do so.
And then you proceed to mention God and Satan and Christian moral principles.
If you’re going to give a non-theological answer, then do so.
C
condan
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
You are right that the emotional stability of children is not “determined purely by whether or not they grow up in an ideal home”. However, it does play a very strong role. Further, to compare losing a parent to death or even divorce and living with two homosexual parents is false. They are simply not the same thing.
Gottle of Geer:
Gottle of Geer:
As has been pointed out, marriage is the building block of our society. Whether or not it is a happy one is irrelevant. Certainly it is the ideal but it is not a requirement to make a marriage. In contrast, having one man and one woman is.
There are some people who think as you do that it really makes no difference who is in marriage. What the motivation is remains a mystery. Maybe you can shed some light on this. How would redefining marriage strengthen it? How would this benefit the “big picture”? How does this benefit anyone except the two people involved? Why should we redefine our most basic elements to appease a tiny minority?
How or why people would want to eradicate the foundation of our society with no regard for the long-term effects simply boggles the mind.
“Tolerance”, as it is commonly used today, means acceptance rather than the original meaning which was to put up with things that we know to be contrary to the norm. The concept of teaching children to tolerate things that are wrong is inconceivable to me. Why on earth would we want to do that?
You are right that the emotional stability of children is not “determined purely by whether or not they grow up in an ideal home”. However, it does play a very strong role. Further, to compare losing a parent to death or even divorce and living with two homosexual parents is false. They are simply not the same thing.
Gottle of Geer:
Adultery and desertion were long considered crimes but our tolerant society has removed that distinction. As for the parents who loathe the sight of each other, each marriage has its own problems. Parents have made a commitment to each other and they need to honor that. Is it easy? No. However, its what each of us is called to do. Further, sticking with one’s commitments does, in fact, reflect the love of Christ. Remember, He did something He didn’t want to do and He did it out of love for us. It may not meet your expectations of the “ideal” home but it is certainly better than one built on a false premise: sodomy.
Gottle of Geer:
The problem with “gay marriage” is that it redefines what we have always called marriage. Divorce and adultery, while sinful, do not change the nature of marriage (i.e., the union of a man and a woman to form a home for potential offspring) so they cannot be compared to the push to legitimize homosexual relationships. Even if a man and a woman can’t or won’t have children, the fundamental components, i.e., one man and one woman, exist. Comparing adultery to “homosexual marriage” is a red herring. It’s simply not the same thing. Adultery is the breaking of the commitment to monogamy. “Gay marriage” is the rewriting and redefining the most basic elements of marriage itself. Two men or two women simply do not make a husband and a wife. There is no such thing as two wives.
As has been pointed out, marriage is the building block of our society. Whether or not it is a happy one is irrelevant. Certainly it is the ideal but it is not a requirement to make a marriage. In contrast, having one man and one woman is.
There are some people who think as you do that it really makes no difference who is in marriage. What the motivation is remains a mystery. Maybe you can shed some light on this. How would redefining marriage strengthen it? How would this benefit the “big picture”? How does this benefit anyone except the two people involved? Why should we redefine our most basic elements to appease a tiny minority?
How or why people would want to eradicate the foundation of our society with no regard for the long-term effects simply boggles the mind.
F
fix
Guest
Asked about allowing same sex couples to adopt children, the Cardinal answered, “This would destroy the child’s future, it would be an act of moral violence against the child.”
Exactly. It seems unrepentant sin dulls the conscience and darkens the intellect.
Exactly. It seems unrepentant sin dulls the conscience and darkens the intellect.
T
Tyler_Smedley
Guest
Well I did the best I could under the circumstances. I didn’t quote the bible (the Word of God) or any of the Church documents, so I think I did fairly well.
R
Richardols
Guest
Tyler Smedley:
I believe that “God” and “Satan,” are straight out of the Bible.
E
ElizabethAnne
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
The Church confirms over and over again that sex is a wonderful thing that has its place – within a marriage between a man and a woman.
I and many other Catholics would say instead that the Church is at her best when teaching about sexual matters. The Catholic Church is is one of the only organizations that stands up for the truth about these issues every time. Church leaders speak up in support of the Bible’s teaching on fornication, adultry and homosexuality.
The Church confirms over and over again that sex is a wonderful thing that has its place – within a marriage between a man and a woman.
F
fix
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
B
Brad
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
You CANNOT be talking about the Vicar of Christ and his congregation’s teachings on the subject. In fact, this IS truth, the protected teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.
If you are confused, take out your Bible, the Word of God. Start in Genesis. Work your way through the OT. Find me a single place where sexual immorality did not lead to very bad things. In fact, easier yet but still undoable, find me a place where something very bad was NOT the result, at least partially, of sexual immorality.
You must be talking about the church in America and Western Europe where matters of sexuality are frequently taught in a vague relativistic manner, where fornication cannot be taught as wrong to engaged couples for fear of offending, where more frequent is the day that I win the lottery than I hear “contraception is wrong”, “abortion is wrong”, or “2nd marriage is wrong”, where tolerance is the hightest “virtue”, and where the only time adultery is spoken of is in combination with drooling over the fact that Jesus did not say that the woman should be stoned.
You CANNOT be talking about the Vicar of Christ and his congregation’s teachings on the subject. In fact, this IS truth, the protected teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.
If you are confused, take out your Bible, the Word of God. Start in Genesis. Work your way through the OT. Find me a single place where sexual immorality did not lead to very bad things. In fact, easier yet but still undoable, find me a place where something very bad was NOT the result, at least partially, of sexual immorality.
L
Listener
Guest
Here is why I think the Church is correct in opposing Gay marriage: Marriage has always been a union of a man an a woman. This has been true for eons. If you allow a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, you change the basic definition of marriage. If the basic definition of marriage can be changed, then who is to say that it can’t be further changed. Maybe bisexual people will decide that they want one of each, so marriage will have to change to a union between two or three people. If that happens, then why can’t Mormons have more than one wife? Why can’t children be married? Why couldn’t you marry your mother? If the definition of marriage changes enough times, there will be no such thing as marriage any more. Marriage will be a Sacrament of the Church like Baptism, and nothing more.
Even if those things don’t happen, I believe that there will be a danger that priests will be thrown in jail for refusing to marry persons of the same sex.
I think that gay people do have a point - why can’t they get the same benefits a people who can marry? Maybe the answer is to create a new thing called a “domestic partnership” that has nothing to do with sex. That way, a single woman who has her sick mother living with her could form a “domestic partnership” with her mother and put her on the medical insurance that she gets through her employer. Two single women who were friends and roommates and who had no close relatives could form a “domestic partnership” so they could have the same authority as relatives when visiting each other in the hospital. I don’t know whether or not the Church has anything against this “domestic partnership” idea. It’s just a thought.
Even if those things don’t happen, I believe that there will be a danger that priests will be thrown in jail for refusing to marry persons of the same sex.
I think that gay people do have a point - why can’t they get the same benefits a people who can marry? Maybe the answer is to create a new thing called a “domestic partnership” that has nothing to do with sex. That way, a single woman who has her sick mother living with her could form a “domestic partnership” with her mother and put her on the medical insurance that she gets through her employer. Two single women who were friends and roommates and who had no close relatives could form a “domestic partnership” so they could have the same authority as relatives when visiting each other in the hospital. I don’t know whether or not the Church has anything against this “domestic partnership” idea. It’s just a thought.
B
Brad
Guest
I do not think the domestic partnership is a good idea. The entire reason for any special benefit for married couples is 1) to encourage child bearing and the continuation of society and 2) to encourage faithfulness and the stabilization of society.
Extending the benefits to any arbitrary arrangement does not achieve these goals and creates potential legal nightmares. How could one choose between 2 very deserving benefit receipients to partner with?
The whole idea of special benefits for marriage is due to the extreme unique and special quality of marriage. Our society has bent over backwards to make everyone that chooses to treat marriage as trivial to be just as “special”, which is why homosexual activists have little room to complain about not receiving supposed benefits. I don’t know that they are denied any if it was really though.
C
condan
Guest
You are so right!
A
amcalabrese
Guest
I am a Catholic libertarian and frankly, while I do not want the Church to recognize gay marriage, I support some sort of civil recognition.
To me, my marriage is both a recognition by the state of shared property rights and a sacrament of the Church.
The unromantic unmystical side says that gay marriage is fine, in that all it does is regularize how the state views property rights.
To me, my marriage is both a recognition by the state of shared property rights and a sacrament of the Church.
The unromantic unmystical side says that gay marriage is fine, in that all it does is regularize how the state views property rights.
C
condan
Guest
Marriage has nothing to do with property rights. That’s what lawyers are for.
A
amcalabrese
Guest
I am a lawyer.
And to me, civil marriage is nothing more than the sharing and intermingling of property rights by the civil authority.
Sacramental marriage is different and cannot be imparted by any state.
In any event, I am also a federalist and believe that civil marriage is a matter of the individual states.
F
Fitz
Guest
Tyler Smedley:
It seems that you hit a nerve with somone. 
I thought you did a great job.
It seems that you hit a nerve with somone.
C
condan
Guest
Certainly property is acquired throughout marriage or brought to it and the civil authority has the duty of assigning rights if there is a dissolution of a marriage. However, the division of property is an effect of marriage, not a defining characteristic. People get married, not to divide property, but to unite and form a home for children.
The question seems to be who in the states decides: The people or the judiciary? Further, if the definition of marriage is left to the individual states, what else can each individual state define? Can my state redefine the meaning of the phrase “human being” to exclude certain undesirables so they will be denied rights (like freedom, the ability to own property, etc.)? If so, then it seems that we fought the Civil War for naught. While we may leave mundane legislation to the individual states we, as a nation, have decided that there are some ideas and philosophies that are so repugnant to the common good that we must decide them as a collective. Slavery and segregation are two that pop quickly to mind.
So, as a Federalist, are you willing to allow certain states to reinstistute segregation?
- Status