What if the state let "gays" call their union "marriage" but changed the name of heterosexual unions to "natural marriage"?

[livingwordunity]

Would “gay” activists be satisfied with a compromise like that?

 

[chipeto]

What if they called one ‘original marriage’ and the other ‘supermarriage’?

 

[Hokomai]

No, I am sure that no one would be happy with applying Catholic opinion to the legal names of things. Most people do not accept the Catholic ideas about ‘nature’ and ‘natural law’, even if they are opponents of gay marriage. Why don’t Catholics start calling what they do ‘holy matrimony’ and distinguish it from ‘marriage’ in all its diversity, and let others do what others want?

 

[SgtSchultz]

They have the term “civil union” already! But that isn’t good enough. The end goal of the radical gay marriage advocates is to destroy the institution of marriage and the family. Many have openly promoted this.

 

[enickman]

No, I am sure that no one would be happy with applying Catholic opinion to the legal names of things. Most people do not accept the Catholic ideas about ‘nature’ and ‘natural law’, even if they are opponents of gay marriage. Why don’t Catholics start calling what they do ‘holy matrimony’ and distinguish it from ‘marriage’ in all its diversity, and let others do what others want?

We do call it holy matrimony and there aren’t any distinctions to be made since they (holy matrimony and marriage) are the same thing.

 

[chipeto]

No, I am sure that no one would be happy with applying Catholic opinion to the legal names of things. Most people do not accept the Catholic ideas about ‘nature’ and ‘natural law’, even if they are opponents of gay marriage. Why don’t Catholics start calling what they do ‘holy matrimony’ and distinguish it from ‘marriage’ in all its diversity, and let others do what others want?

It isn’t just Catholic opinion, my friend, it is the overwhelming opinion of mankind. Nor is this about ‘letting others do what others want’, it is a about a demand for the public, as a whole, to sanction a radical redefinition of marriage. I reiterate: it is a demand for public recognition.

Again, this is not just about Catholics. And I will have to disagree with your thoughts about ‘nature’ and ‘natural law’. While the man in the street’s feelings on these matters may not be identical to those of the Church, they are not all that different in substance.

 

[MidnightSun12]

“Gay” activits will never be satisfied because the motivation behind their activism is to reach for something that can never be attained (that is, to make homosexual sodomy a moral equivalent to the conjugal act of married spouses). Deep down, they will always know that what they are doing is gravely wrong and Satan will always make the answer to them seem like they need to just keep pushing for more “rights” and marginalize traditional marriage more and more so that they can “feel” accepted.

As Catholics, of course, we also could not accept such a name change because it would imply that sodomy is something other then an intrinsically evil act and that it can be recognized as having at least some moral worth. To open the door even slightly on the issue of same-sex unions, would give Satan an enormous opening that he would use to bring down great hardship and evil that otherwise would not have had the opportunity to occur.

 

[Petersmate]

“Gay” activits will never be satisfied because the motivation behind their activism is to reach for something that can never be attained (that is, to make homosexual sodomy a moral equivalent to the conjugal act of married spouses). Deep down, they will always know that what they are doing is gravely wrong and Satan will always make the answer to them seem like they need to just keep pushing for more “rights” and marginalize traditional marriage more and more so that they can “feel” accepted.

As Catholics, of course, we also could not accept such a name change because it would imply that sodomy is something other then an intrinsically evil act and that it can be recognized as having at least some moral worth. To open the door even slightly on the issue of same-sex unions, would give Satan an enormous opening that he would use to bring down great hardship and evil that otherwise would not have had the opportunity to occur.

These are very genuine concerns. Unfortunately there are places where gay marriage has already been legalised. The problem started with the acceptance of the contraceptive pill. Once the pill was allowed it became obvious that it was going to be anything goes after that. Do whatever you like, there are no boundaries. The protestants have not been helpful with this issue, and their idea that scripture can be interpreted any way they want.

What’s the solution? Well this video gives the solution - youtube.com/watch?v=cLZyN8x8gNE

This is dour combat with the forces of evil.

 

[djames99]

Would “gay” activists be satisfied with a compromise like that?

I am sure that while Moses was receiving the commandments, the crowd was deciding the proper protocol for marriages precided in behalf of the golden calf god. They have found temporary heaven they have chosen instead of the eternal will provide them no restriction to their deviance. They have chosen the realm of the prince of this world.

So it is now. For that question to be answered perhaps they should ask their temporary prince what is appropriate. Such a question should be addressed to the right crowd, it as no relevance here among us who have chosen heaven.

 

[St_Francis]

Would “gay” activists be satisfied with a compromise like that?

No, because what they want is for what they do to be the same as what heterosexual people do.

 

[livingwordunity]

No, because what they want is for what they do to be the same as what heterosexual people do.

And what heterosexuals do to consummate a marriage is have sexual intercourse (sex organ to sex organ, not sex organ to non-sex organ), and this typically results in a baby (if the heterosexual couple isn’t using contraception). This is something that homosexuals can never do with each other.

 

[JimG]

What if they called one ‘original marriage’ and the other ‘supermarriage’?

But original marriage always involved sexual complementarity, and homosexual marriage is hardly supermarriage. One might simply refer to them as natural marriage and unnatural marriage, but nobody would accept that either.

 

[Slavonic]

They have the term “civil union” already! But that isn’t good enough. The end goal of the radical gay marriage advocates is to destroy the institution of marriage and the family. Many have openly promoted this.

First, there are many federal benefits provided to married couples not provided to couples in a civil union. Second, I doubt they want to destroy the institution they want to be a part of. It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[Santi2]

That the best option I’ve heard so far…because then one is specifically called “holy” and retains a religious aspect to it…and the other is truly the dictionary/encyclopedia description of “marriage”…

Unfortunately, I do not see how that would work over here as laws were amended to allow religious civil partnerships, as lobbied by the homosexual community in partnership with the Quakers, Liberal Judaism and Unitarians. The minister/rabbi of those groups would assert that the unions they celebrate are “holy”.

 

[Hokomai]

We do call it holy matrimony and there aren’t any distinctions to be made since they (holy matrimony and marriage) are the same thing.

Your problem is that already in parts of the world, homosexual marriage exists in law. So the words no longer mean the same thing. You have lost your trademark battle. Get a new one, is my advice.

 

[livingwordunity]

First, there are many federal benefits provided to married couples not provided to couples in a civil union. Second, I doubt they want to destroy the institution they want to be a part of. It just doesn’t make sense.

If all “gay” activists want is money why can’t they just ask for more benefits to be added to their “civil union” without trying to change the definition of marriage? Marriage defined as one man and one woman is the original definition, it’s older than any government and older than divorce. If anyone would have been arguing to change the definition of marriage a hundred years ago even the homosexuals would have thought they were crazy.