What Should We Do If Gay "Marriage" Becomes Legal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deusnobiscum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reep said:
I hope–when you want to focus on adultery–you mean by right teaching and good example and not the criminal punishment of adulterers. That solution calls to mind that bloody-minded mob who were so focused on an adulteress they wanted to stone her. Jesus could have hammered that issued by acquiescing to her punishment, **but he saved her instead. **

As St. Augustine points out (here) we do not condone sinful behavior simply because we do not punish it officially. It is better to leave most such sins to God to handle in his own in his own time and limit the criminal law to the punishment of those who directly harm others.

Likewise, St Thomas Aquinas teaches:
Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.
The angelic doctor was so very libertarian when it comes to the criminal law.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do not wish to prosecute people who commit adultery. What I wish is for the church to focus on real threats to traditional marriage (divorce), not imagined (SSM).
 
TimeEntrance said:
Agreed. And if it impacts the community and society around them–decline in marriage or unstable homes producing nutty people–then that is just something one has to deal with. Kind of like people being against socialism and for rugged individualism. One can think of gay marriage and/or a declining morally corrupt and violent society as a blessing then because they get to prove their rugged individualism in action and spirit.
Click to expand...
Can you cite a credible source to base that on? Or is that just a “sky is falling” fear of yours?In what communities has gay marriage caused a decline in marriage or produced unstable homes producing nutty people? Because there are plenty of studies that show children raised by same sex couples do as well or better in social and academic areas.
 
just_came_back said:
Here here. I’m 38 and I’ve seen it as well. Now that Neal and Bob can flaunt their anti-God “marriage” to all, what is left for the liberals to do to spit in God’s face. Liberals, Planned Parenthood, gays, Obama, etc. THEY ALL HATE GOD!
Click to expand...
Right! And those dang Conservative leaders that we often see on the news due to affairs (heterosexual and homosexual). Bush starting wars. Conservatives trying to cut social programs for the needy. Akin and his “legitimate rape.”
You’re wrong. I am Liberal and I do not hate God. Now, I could write something as silly as you (ALL CONSERVATIVES HATE HUMANITY) but I know that to be false.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
The way you frame the issue is result-oriented. You’ve blown right by the real question - should marriage be redefined so that it no longer is an institution that connects a man and a woman to any children that they produce. That is what marriage is, and has always been. Secular institutions embrace marriage because it is a social good to unite parents with their offspring legally as well as socially. So called “gay marriage” completely severs this purpose from the institution - whether it is secular or religious. That is the real question. It is not a “gay” issue. Marriage is, and always has been, a family issue. It is not cruel to deny same-sex couples entry into an institution that by its very nature simply does not apply - unless it is redefined to exclude the connection of father and mother to children.

The Church’s objection to so-called “gay marriage” is not based on any lack of good faith with respect to gay couples. It concedes that all people want a close connection with those who they love. What it posits is that redefining marriage is not the panacea for this angst, nor should marriage be redefined to advance political agendas or social acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Rather, marriage has a specific role in society that is not applicable to a same-sex couple - no matter how loving, and regardless of the fact that they may have children from some other male-female union.

Of course, that’s NOT what the Church is saying to same-sex couples. No one is barring them from citizenship, happiness, or a full life. The Church is saying that marriage - by its nature - is not applicable to even the most loving same-sex union because the union does not bond the couple to children that are the product of the union. Rather, same-sex marriages ultimately deprive children legally tied to that union of at least their mother or their father. It is not discrimination to say to a man, “You cannot be a mother, you can only be a Father.” Is the man “less of a citizen” because he is denied motherhood? Do we need to redefine motherhood to include male parents? What impact would doing so have on our understanding of “motherhood” in 5 years? In ten years? In a generation? Would motherhood lose it’s meaning and become simply a synonym for “parent.”

Why is it that emotional arguments like Casey’s always look right past the children who are negatively effected by so-called “same-sex marriage.” It guess because it’s all about “personal happiness,” and children are only seen in the abstract at the outset of a marriage?

I wish you well Casey123. I hope you find light and truth wherever life takes you.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
First, you state that marriage is, and has always been an institution that connects a man and a woman to any children that they produce. Then why isn’t the church trying to get legislation that outlaws divorce? That is a far greater threat to traditional marriage. What about those unable to conceive?

What about adopted children? You state that “The Church is saying that marriage - by its nature - is not applicable to even the most loving same-sex union because the union does not bond the couple to children that are the product of the union.” Are adopted children not equal to biological children?

Just how exactly are children negatively effected by SSM? Credible sources/studies please.
 
demol said:
You discuss children. In your opinion is it ok for a woman to marry if she is physically unable to conceive? I often read people advocating for traditional marriage over gay marriage based on the fact that only man and woman can conceive a child.

Additionally, studies have proven that children raised by gay couples do as well or better socially and scholastically.
Click to expand...
The natural pairing for marriage partners is, always has been, a man and a woman. Recent positive law has inserted same sex pairing in marriage to accommodate an invented civil right in favor of a small segment of the population, partnerships that without intervention would not contribute to producing the next generation of citizens.

Society still benefits if a woman physically unable to conceive marries a man, (which goes without saying), if she is able to perform the marital act. She and her husband would still comprise the natural parenting pair to any child they may opt to adopt.

There are studies as well suggesting that gay parenting is not good for the the overall development of children. The problem with studies is the opposing side invariably brings up bias, methodology flaws, results driven by which group provides the funding of the study, etc.

A man and a woman bring into the marriage and raising of children different and necessarily complementary roles, not possible with same sex partners / parents. There is more to raising children than providing three square meals and a home and affording to send them to schools.

If I may ask, why do you, a self identified-Catholic, on the basis of your postings, seem to be supportive of gay “marriage” and adoption? Do you feel you are excused to make an exception in setting aside infallible doctrine and direction as set forth by the Pope and the bishops on this matter?
Personanongrata said:
Women who have had hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry since they are physically not “open to life”. Sterile men – same thing. If this Catholic rule applies to one, then it applies to all. (Where is that sarcastic smiley face when you need it?)
Click to expand...
If that is your reasoning in the name of fairness, then I would say you have earned the meaning of the handle you chose. By spouting such statements contrary or inconsistent with Church teaching, you make a point of making yourself unwelcome in the company you join. Why stay Catholic if you feel strongly against a deeply held doctrine in the faith, when you have options with like minded members of other religious affiliations?

Sterility is not a disqualifying factor in marriageability in the faith. Antecedent and perpetual impotency or inability to have sexual intercourse is a disqualifier. However, in the civil system, barring those rendered infertile by pathology, accident and old age comprise a small percentage of marrying folk that screening for fecundity in women or potency in males would be administratively impractical and costly.
,
 
InSearchofGrace said:
The natural pairing for marriage partners is, always has been, a man and a woman. Recent positive law has inserted same sex pairing in marriage to accommodate an invented civil right in favor of a small segment of the population, partnerships that without intervention would not contribute to producing the next generation of citizens.

Society still benefits if a woman physically unable to conceive marries a man, (which goes without saying), if she is able to perform the marital act. She and her husband would still comprise the natural parenting pair to any child they may opt to adopt.

There are studies as well suggesting that gay parenting is not good for the the overall development of children. The problem with studies is the opposing side invariably brings up bias, methodology flaws, results driven by which group provides the funding of the study, etc.

A man and a woman bring into the marriage and raising of children different and necessarily complementary roles, not possible with same sex partners / parents. There is more to raising children than providing three square meals and a home and affording to send them to schools.

If I may ask, why do you, a self identified-Catholic, on the basis of your postings, seem to be supportive of gay “marriage” and adoption? Do you feel you are excused to make an exception in setting aside infallible doctrine and direction as set forth by the Pope and the bishops on this matter?

If that is your reasoning in the name of fairness, then I would say you have earned the meaning of the handle you chose. By spouting such statements contrary or inconsistent with Church teaching, you make a point of making yourself unwelcome in the company you join. Why stay Catholic if you feel strongly against a deeply held doctrine in the faith, when you have options with like minded members of other religious affiliations?

Sterility is not a disqualifying factor in marriageability in the faith. Antecedent and perpetual impotency or inability to have sexual intercourse is a disqualifier. However, in the civil system, barring those rendered infertile by pathology, accident and old age comprise a small percentage of marrying folk that screening for fecundity in women or potency in males would be administratively impractical and costly.
,
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why my “handle” has anything to do with my position, but there’s no big mystery to it. It’s a combination of my first, middle and last name. And if I may ask, why do you get to decide what’s best for children and two consenting adults?

I was adopted (not by same sex couple) and have enjoyed a life with two loving parents whose marriage I am trying my best to emulate. I also read statistics that tell me 50% of marriages end in divorce. The church has bigger issues than SSM.

I am a Catholic and struggle with my beliefs. SSM will not affect me or my beliefs. I do know a few SSM couples with children and these kids are smart, have no problems with other kids (school and socially) and are immersed in extracurricular activities (standouts, really). I’m not saying that makes it ok. But I just do not feel it is my place to judge others. And the church spending as much as they have (misguidedly IMO) irks me when that money could have been used more efficiently.

And marriage does afford greater benefits than a civil union. I do not see how two people who love each other should be relegated to second class citizens - and that is what denying two people of the same sex does. It is discrimination based on sexual preference.
I believe in the separation of church and state. I do not believe the Catholic church should allow same sex marriage - and they will not have to.

The only studies I have seen that relate to your position are based on children who had a parent in a same sex relationship - not living with a same sex couple. There are numerous non-partisan studies and University studies that support my position. Additionally, you know these couples actually want children.
 
demol said:
I’m not sure why my “handle” has anything to do with my position, but there’s no big mystery to it. It’s a combination of my first, middle and last name.
Click to expand...
The bottom part of my post was not addressed to you.
 
demol said:
The church has bigger issues than SSM.

.
Click to expand...
Does it? What happens when the DOMA is found to be unconstitutional and a gay couple goes into a Catholic Church demanding to be married. When the pastor refuses, a lawsuit ensues, or possibily criminal discrimination charges could be filed against the pastor. Then the government will end up attempting to force the Catholic Church to toe the line. How is that going to end? Seems like a pretty big issue to me. After all, wasn’t our country founded on principles of religious freedom where the government is supposed to not make any laws restricting the freedom of religion?
 
I thank God that the Catholic Church and private individuals have not been (as far as I know) FORCED to participate in Sodom and Gommorra. But I bet you it’s coming, where they will try to FORCE us to participate in SSM, even though the Church is supposedly protected from it.

California has already made it illegal to provide couselling against homosexuality. It will continue, I believe, the forcing of secularism and Sodom and Gommorra on the Church and private citizens.
 
Dig your heels in. So called homosexual marriage and religious freedom cannot coexist. One will have to go. Guess which one?
 
ddodge said:
Does it? What happens when the DOMA is found to be unconstitutional and a gay couple goes into a Catholic Church demanding to be married. When the pastor refuses, a lawsuit ensues, or possibily criminal discrimination charges could be filed against the pastor. Then the government will end up attempting to force the Catholic Church to toe the line. How is that going to end? Seems like a pretty big issue to me. After all, wasn’t our country founded on principles of religious freedom where the government is supposed to not make any laws restricting the freedom of religion?
Click to expand...
Wrong. Gay couples can go and demand to be married on the church’s grounds (if there is public money involved) but they cannot force a priest to marry a couple. They can demand to be married but not who marries them.

And yes, the US was founded with freedom of religion. That has not changed. The states that have voted to allow SSM are not restricting the Catholic church’s religious freedom.
 
demol said:
Wrong. Gay couples can go and demand to be married on the church’s grounds (if there is public money involved) but they cannot force a priest to marry a couple. They can demand to be married but not who marries them.

And yes, the US was founded with freedom of religion. That has not changed. The states that have voted to allow SSM are not restricting the Catholic church’s religious freedom.
Click to expand...
It is already happening other ways. Wedding cakes and photographers cannot discriminate according to the man made laws, even thought the provider is trying to practice his faith. And the homosexuals are not shy about starting lawsuits to impose their way.
 
bsroufek said:
I thank God that the Catholic Church and private individuals have not been (as far as I know) FORCED to participate in Sodom and Gommorra. But I bet you it’s coming, where they will try to FORCE us to participate in SSM, even though the Church is supposedly protected from it.

California has already made it illegal to provide couselling against homosexuality. It will continue, I believe, the forcing of secularism and Sodom and Gommorra on the Church and private citizens.
Click to expand...
The bill bans non-scientific therapies that have driven young people to depression and suicide. What is wrong with that? What if they were trying to make it illegal to counsel against heterosexuality? Would that be ok with you?
 
buffalo said:
It is already happening other ways. Wedding cakes and photographers cannot discriminate according to the man made laws, even thought the provider is trying to practice his faith. And the homosexuals are not shy about starting lawsuits to impose their way.
Click to expand...
There are laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s been around for some time.
 
demol said:
The bill bans non-scientific therapies that have driven young people to depression and suicide. What is wrong with that? What if they were trying to make it illegal to counsel against heterosexuality? Would that be ok with you?
Click to expand...
Might want to look at these:

“Political Correctness Rules, Not Science,” Says American Psychological Association Past-President in Interview

Was Never Done," Says Former A.P.A. President in Interview

Dr. Nicolosi Explains Reparative Therapy
 
demol said:
My question still stands. Would you be ok if they were trying to make it illegal to counsel against heterosexuality?
Click to expand...
Heterosexuality is the full expression of the male and female.

Now to you. If a homosexual would like to seek treatment why should he prevented?
 
buffalo said:
Heterosexuality is the full expression of the male and female.

Now to you. If a homosexual would like to seek treatment why should he prevented?
Click to expand...
How is heterosexuality the full expression? Do you mean intercourse?

He or she shouldn’t be prevented if that is what they and their parents want, but there is needed research as the American Psychiatric Association determined that reparative therapy poses a great risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top